From: Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 15:55:23 -0800 (PST)
To: gnu@toad.com
Subject: Re: Moderation, Tim, Sandy, me, etc. * Strong crypto == DES?!
In-Reply-To: <199702041456.GAA28779@toad.com>
Message-ID: <199702042348.XAA00577@server.test.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



The gist of your post seems to be saying that:

 - yes, the result it is not purely anarchic

 - the moderation experiment intentionally moderated the main list
   by design

 - this is perhaps slightly at odds with cypherpunks philosphy on
   freedom

but that this is necessary because:

 - cypherpunks larger goals are more important

 - cypherpunks goals are better served by having a lower noise
   environment to work in

 - create that environment by any means possible (ends justify the means)

 - people weren't being responsible with their freedom anyway

 - it's only an experiment

 - if you don't like this and complain you're part of the problem


Now it may seem nit-picking to a pragmatist, which is the way you
presented your arguments, but the idea that cypherpunks should stoop
to moderation/censorship calls into question what cypherpunks larger
goals are.  Why?  Because we promote electronic freedom, but in order
to effectively organise the promotion of freedom, we reject full
freedom of speech as unworkable, and impose restrictions.  This lends
ammunition to our opponents.  "See even they realise there must be
limits to free speech".


Cypherpunks main goal is:

  "to promote privacy and freedom through technological means"

and arising from this goal, are presumed philosphical stances:

 - privacy and freedom are a good thing (unconditional free speech is
   a good thing)

 - censorship is a bad thing

 - government retrictions and backdoors in crypto are a bad thing
   (crypto providing practical privacy, and practical free speech
   being provided by cryptographically enabled anonymity)

 - chaumian credentials are preferable to fully traceable credentials

 - etc. etc.


So the question to me boils down to is unconditional free speech a
good thing?

Dorothy Denning says no.  Louis Freeh says no.  The Clinton
administration says no.

I thought you said yes.  I thought most of your actions for the last
10 years screamed yes!

Why cut corners for little gain?


Another moderated list with official sanction (hosted by toad.com,
with your commendation that people subscribe to it (to reduce noise
and increase productivity), with instructions in the sign on message
listing the moderated/filtered lists available, clearly stating the
filtering policy, regularly posted instructions on available filtered
lists to cypherpunks) would have been beautiful.  Fine.  Lovely.

But you set up moderation of _the_ list, with no interaction required
by the subscriber.

That caused Tim to unsubscribe.  It's causing me, and others to argue
for this aspect of the moderation to be reversed ASAP.

> PS: Can we talk about crypto too?  It's clear from the last few days
> of press releases that the pro-GAK forces are again working to confuse
> novices into thinking that two very different things are the same
> thing.  Last time it was "public key infrastructure" and "key
> recovery".  This time it's "strong crypto" and "56-bit DES".  What
> should we do about this?  Educate the public?

Education, and countering government news-speak seems to be the key
issues at the moment.

Educate the journalist that perpetuated the pro-GAK lie.  Write an
article to the same publication pointing out the fallacy
(unfortunately as these are private presses they are `moderated', so
you may not get your say).  Buy the advert space if they won't
publish.  I'll contribute.

Distribute strong crypto (you are personally, the ipsec S/WAN
initiative is important).  I'm working on creating and distributing
strong crypto, and influencing sectors of users to use strong crypto,
rather than export crippled US stuff.  The myth that 56 bits is strong
is perpetuated by journalists outside the US too.  The export
situation is complex, many user groups (even IT managers) don't
understand.  They don't understand the meaning of key strengths
either.  

Break DES to demonstrate it's weakness.  May happen in the next 1/2
year.  Gets free publicity.  People aren't saying 40 bits are secure
anymore.  Cypherpunks acheived that.

Hope that Matt Blaze goes ahead with his hardware DES breaker.  He
said some time ago that he had spare funding and was considering using
it for this purpose.  Anyone know the state of play?  This would be
more important as it would quantify the costs, and would be much more
impressive, and realistic for an estimate of the strength of DES
against industrial espionage or well funded criminal attack.

Adam
--
print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>
)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`