From: Jim Choate <ravage@EINSTEIN.ssz.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 19:32:09 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Libel/slander & crypto relevancy
Message-ID: <199701280332.TAA15454@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Hi,

I have received several private emails inquiring into what possible crypto
relevance the recent exchange over libel/slander and the law. It is clear
that even in democratic countries like Canada (not know as a freedom of
speech protectorate) slander/libel is covered under criminal codes. While
it is true that currently these statutes are not heavily used, if at all,
this will change as businesses and special interest groups move even further
onto electronic networks. Consider the zealous use of the law by the CoS.
Ask Julf if the ramifications are not 'real world'.

Consider a trial where a person is purported to have altered a transmission
by some party. It is not in the juries best interest to rule in the favor of
anyone other than the person claiming the damage. Why you might ask? Simply
because they are going to see themselves in that same situation and will
want to know that they are protected both in spirit as well as actuality.
What company will want to use an environment where their contracts and other
exchanges can not only be viewed by unknown third parties but are subject to
a man in the middle attack, potentialy ruining a company. Consider the
ramifications in a political venue. Now some will quickly point out that
they can encrypt the entire document, hardly suitable for web pages and
other forms of advertisment. I predict that within the next five years these
slander/libel laws will be used by some organization to prosecute defamation
of their Internet presence (eg web page graffitti). Within 10 years this
area will be one of the hotest areas of the new communications law.

Now some have held that list operators and such will be protected, most
probably not in reality. Consider, we live in a time where a person can get
drunk and kill somebody with their automobile and the bar or store they
bought the drink(s) from can be charged. There is a current trend in the
legal industry to find the person that is easiest to prosecute in the chain
of events and it has nothing to do with personal responsibility or other
quaint but possibly naive views.

I want to thank Toto for acting as the unknowing and unwilling dupe in my
taking advantage of his emotional outburst and its results, it wasn't
personal I was simply trying to create a suitable environment to make
my point. It was a happenstance occurance I could not resist taking
advantage of. It is clear that here we have a lawyer in Canada who is not
even aware that there is a little used criminal statute in the country he
practices in which could be used by citizens sufficiently motivated and
having suitable quantities of cash at hand to pursue the matter. This is
not a unique occurance by any means, consider the outburst from some list
members, supposed legal experts, over some of the references that I
forwarded (not what I would call a consistent understanding of the law by
any stretch of the imagination). The reality is that the legal industry
(after all the main motivation for the legal profession is money) has a
serious lacking in trained individuals. This should be a warning sign to
everyone in any society which has hopes of embracing communications 
technology. Lawyers don't make law, they survive by taking their views of
the law and convincing juries of from 6 to 12 (YMMV) persons that this is
the way to protect 'society' and its best interests. If they don't
understand the technology (eg forwarding private email to publicly
accessible lists by accident) how in the world are they going to understand
what is best, let along convince anyone else? Is this the kind of
self-interest you want to trust your criminal communications case, let alone
your liberty, to?

It has been proposed by at least one party that a district attorney or other
public prosecutor would not act on such events. This is also naive. The
ramifications for their political opponents to use this 'insensitive and
clearly self-interested' refusal to act as a perfect example of how that
prosecutor is interested in their own political career and not in the
interest of the people they are charged with protecting as well as a good
demonstration of their technological ignorance. It would be very difficult
to get re-elected in such an environment.

Now the crypto relevancy, one of the methods to help reduce if not
completely abort such attempts is digital signatures. Recently a couple of
co-workers for Tivoli-IBM went to the Usenix conference and while there did
some key signings. However, after discussion upon their return it was clear
that having had their keys signed and signing others there was no clearly
useful way to apply those keys in commen communications. Last year the
Austin Cypherpunks did a short term experiment with a system
(kourier.ssz.com) which was involved in encrypted file systems, encrypted
transfers, traffic analysis, and heterogenous key-ring management. This also
made it clear that the legal ramifications, economic issues (eg who pays) as
well as the technical hurdles have not been studied sufficiently to call this
technology mature.

All that I ask is that instead of jumping the gun and saying 'it ain't so'
you simply consider the ramifications from 'their' perspective. It truly is
amazing what one can learn by walking a mile in another mans shoes. For if
there is one truth to be learned it is that this discussion is not about how
it is, but rather how it will be and how it should be.


                                                 Jim Choate
                                                 CyberTects
                                                 ravage@ssz.com