From: David Sternlight <david@sternlight.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 21:02:54 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: CDT Policy Post 2.27 - No New News on Crypto: Gore Restates
In-Reply-To: <199607151701.KAA00537@mail.pacifier.com>
Message-ID: <v03007600ae1053f60923@[192.187.162.15]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Some live in the conversation in their head and require that everything be
spelled out. Very well, then:

At 10:58 AM -0700 7/15/96, jim bell wrote:
>At 06:05 PM 7/14/96 -0700, David Sternlight wrote:
>
>>This post is a courtesy to others who may have been expecting more.
>
>It's not that we're expecting more...it's just that we're hoping for
BETTER.

"More" in the sense of a response to your personal attacks.

>
>>It's a
>>one-time statement to this list, which I've just joined, of my current
>>practice: Silence does not constitute assent.
>>David
>

>Well, that's where you're confused.  Our positions are not morally
>equivalent.

Morality has nothing to do with it. The instant dispute is over facts. And
you have no idea what my position on GAK is, judging from your personal
attacks. I'll help you out. I do not object to it domestically as long as it
is voluntary, that restriction is hard-coded into the rules and laws, and
there are real choices at least initially. ("Trust everyone and always cut
the cards.") Whether I then use it or not is my business, though it's no
secret that I'd use a non-GAK system in preference were it available and an
Internet standard. I trust the market and my fellow citizens, and if they
rush to GAK because of superior features or some such and non-GAK dies on
the vine because it is poorly implemented or poorly marketed, that's the way
freedom works. You can't compel others to user YOUR favorite system just so
you can have the benefits from it you want, nor should others try to
suppress your favorites. That sword cuts both ways--vis a vis the
government's favorites. They shouldn't try to compel what thye like, nor
should they suppress what they don't unless the people's representatives
have legislated (as for example in the case of the authority for ITAR) and
the matter is Constitutional.

I think foreign governments' crypto policies to be none of my
business--though I know some other Americans love to wrap themselves in high
moral raiment and preach on the topic to such foreign governments, and many
foreigners with motes in their own eyes like to do that to us. I have a
personal opinion in the matter which is likely the same as yours, but do not
feel entitled to burden others with that since it's so much ineffectual chin
music.

>Despite trying to hide behind the smokescreen of calling the
>government's GAK position "voluntary," we all know that they are trying to
>misuse their influence to gently force us to use GAK, if by no other means
>that forcing the taxpayer to pay for the system as they have done already.

I agree, though I would not have phrased it in such an offensive way. This
isn't some conspiracy of evil but people with a legitimate policy
disagreement.

>
>The opponents of GAK, on the other hand, are not denying to anyone the
right
>to implement a truly voluntary "key-escrow" system, or more likely many
>privately operating ones.

I disagree again. It is evident from the effort to shoot down Clipper I,
which WAS voluntary, that this is another case of your version of
"voluntary". If an offeror, even the government, offers something voluntary
and you don't like it, you attempt to suppress it. It's kinda like "freedom
of speech only for those who agree with me".

> However, such systems will be a service for the
>customer, not the government, and the key will almost certainly not be
>provided to the government on request, and in fact the key will likely be
>stored in an encrypted form that the government won't be able to use.

To the contrary, business records are always available on legitimate
subpoena by the government, and this would include escrowed keys. YOU don't
have to like it, but it's the law.

>
>Quite simply, we do not require your "assent."  You should be trying to get

>OURS.

"Silence does not constitute assent" to your personal attacks, your policy
assertions, and what I think to be your misrepresentations of fact. I was
not speaking of assent to GAK in that sentence.

I think your attempt to pseudospeciate me and create an "us and him"
situation in this group is bound to fail with those who have paid attention
to what I think and say, particularly my most recent thinking. On many
matters we are agreed at bottom. However, I place high value on policy and
strategy advocacies that are content-robust and work, in preference to
ineffectual ones that merely make one feel good. Further, I do not believe
one should suppress criticism of one's allies when they are doing a sloppy
or wrong-headed job of things. That's just opening the door to a failure
instead of sharpening things up to improve the chances of a success. The
radical feminists' "Sisterhood, right or wrong" is not my motto. When you're
right, you're right and I support you, and when I think you're wrong I won't
hesitate to point it out.

David


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBMequPEwgH+NYrQ81AQG56AP/VPJC454h+OWdCZ0i8BajL+7YtZ3z3QkR
foCov4Fy4msK45uwaNCnHnIwqvwNksoZRVCDValY74r9GAB5f/Em5TFWVxe8WLz8
44hZ739RfPBKJH1F7M/JUY7RMwIwxsFtaYWt89pwc9mZyXwoHT5xXdbojXakf8HI
MRLTEaqbB8M=
=1WC/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----