From: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 22:03:11 -0800 (PST)
To: Greg Broiles <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Subject: No Compromise on Crypto Freedom--the Rejectionist Platform
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970306204523.006e7930@mail.io.com>
Message-ID: <v03007800af4559047184@[207.167.93.63]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 9:11 PM -0800 3/6/97, Greg Broiles wrote:
>At 04:45 PM 3/5/97 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote:
>>(Pre-P.S. Why are so many of you all still using the address
>>"cypherpunks@toad.com"? I keep changing the address to
>>"cypherpunks@cyberpass.net", one of the supposedly mirror addresses, but
>>it's getting to be a drag.)
>
>I believe that cypherpunks@toad.com gets wider dissemination that the
>"cyberpass.net" address does - the cypherpunks-unedited list is still alive
>(don't know why, or for how long), and feeding posts to cyberpass.net,
>which feeds posts to algebra.com. As far as I can tell, algebra doesn't
>feed cyberpass, and cyberpass doesn't feed toad, so if one wants the widest
>possible audience, one still writes to toad.com. Besides, it pegs the
>conspiracy-meters of people who like to study message headers.

You've convinced me, Greg, to start using the old "cypherpunks@toad.com"
address, to get the widest possible distibution. I am hopeful, though, that
certain parties will not [CENNSORED] our posts and {CENSORED} them to
[CENSORED} the way some of them {CENSORED] were in the old regime. But
{CENSORED} will have his way, I guess.



>So I don't think that it can be applied to remailers at all. Remailers do
>not "preserve" information, but discard it, and prevent anyone from
>"receiving" it, authorized or not. I think it (arguably) applies to

I agree that neither Leahy nor Burns has ever heard of remailers, let alone
figured them out.

But I believe remailers are essentially cryptographic, even according to
the language of the bills. Remailers are to source-sink mapping "messages"
as ordinary crypto is to text messages. Remailers "preserve" the
untraceability of source-sink messages (the mapping from Alice to Zeke),
while not using remailers "gives away" or "discards" this information. The
status quo is to give away this information. Remailers "preserve" this
information (or non-information, which is really the same thing_.

If this is too abstract an argument, consider that the same people who want
crypto restricted also want remailers restricted. And for good reason, from
their perspective. Remailers do for message mappings what crypto does for
message text. One preserves the privacy of the routing, the other preserves
the privacy of the body text.

Even if neither Leahy nor Burns understand this "new" technolgy (1882-88
technology) and are stuck at the old technology of 1976-80, i.e., ordinary
crypto, I expect the Leahy and Burns bills will be applied to crypto.

>>Whether this will happen is unclear, but I cannot support a bill like
>>Pro-CODE, or Leahy, which seems to make it easy to restrict technologies
>>I'm interested in.
>
>I'm certainly not arguing that you (or anyone) ought to support Pro-Code or
>ECPA/1997. Pro-CODE looks like a deal with the devil to me (a la Digital
>Telephony) and ECPA/1997 just looks like trouble. I still think it's useful
>to think about what their likely effect will be, if passed - not so much in
>order to lobby for/against them (I'm deeply ambivalent about lobbying and
>the legislative process) but because it's good to get a head start on what
>may be the legal playing field in a year or so.

_You_ are not arguing that I or anyone else should support Burns or Leahy,
but I sure do see the "EFF" and "EPIC" and "Voters Telecom Watch" groups
doing this. The party line seems to be that libertarian-thinking cyberspace
folks should write their Congresscritters expressing support for Pro-CODE
(and to a much lesser extent, Leahy/ECPA).

Well, I don't buy it.

I think Cypherpunks would do well to campaign on the "Rejectionist" Platform:

* don't encourage passage of either Pro-CODE or Leahy

* let the damned corporations seeking export fight their own battles

(It's understandable that RSADSI, Netscape, C2Net, and others of that ilk
would support a bill which liberalizes their export prospects while
probably impinging on domestic use of crypto, but we private citizens and
seekers of liberty should  denounce such bad compromises with all our
might.)

* continue with our efforts to have Washington made irrelevant

* push for a public hanging of Fineswine, Leahy, Clinton, and all the other
criminals

No compromise!

--Tim May


Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside"
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."