HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: timf@polari.online.com
Subject: Re: Registering "Assault Keys"
Organization: Seattle Online Public Access Unix (206) 328-4944
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 04:00:21 GMT


Please move the gun control discussion to talk.politics.guns.

As for the parallel with the gun issue, I think this is still valid,
regardless of one's feelings on either issue.  There will always be
a portion of the population which will engage in the prohibited
activity (whether that activity is data encryption or gun ownership).
If we accept that the individuals most likely to persist are
also those most likely to use the prohibited activity as a
means to another illegal end, nothing will have been accomplished by
the prohibition. 

Actually, that's not a fair conclusion.  Let's say "very little"
will have been accomplished by the prohibition, since it probably
*would* curtail a certain portion of the crimes these tools
facilitate..The point is that it would fail to impact the most
dedicated, and therefore most dangerous, criminals.  It would,
however, impact the basically law-abiding citizen with an
interest in such technologies.  It would also very likely infringe
on the spirit, if not the letter, of every citizen's civil rights.
-- 
Timothy R. Flanagan		timf@polari.online.com
				tim@reed.edu
I'm the ACLU, the NRA, the EFF, Pro-Choice -- and I vote.
Unfortunately, I can't find a candidate to vote for.
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: RSA marketing weakness or lack of demand?
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 92 13:44:53 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
> It appears that RSA has had patent protection for about 15 years. Yet
> there are no readily available standard RSA systems for use on Macs,
> nor standard electronic mail packages widely available for purchase
> using RSA (though it is claimed that Apple's OCE will include at
> least message authentication next year).
> 
> I'm curious about what people think about why this is.

Well, let's see.  I believe RSA was developed at MIT, and paid for by the US
taxpayer.  I understand that when it was announced, the US government
attempted to cover up the whole business and bury the technology, but that
they failed because A.K. Dewdney of Scientific American and various other
people mailed out photocopies of the appropriate papers to all and sundry,
having been 'leaked' copies of the articles before or shortly after initial
publication.

I gather that it was then arranged for a series of patents to be applied for
retrospectively.  (That is, I'm told, why the patents are not valid outside
the US; they were applied for after publication.)  These patents were
apparently handed on a plate to PKP, a company which seems to have done very
little other than threaten litigation.

Although they're a completely independent organization, and nothing at all to
do with the US government, PKP seem strangely reticent to license the RSA
patents to ordinary citizens who want to use RSA.  In fact, they refuse point
blank to license the patents to people who want to use PGP.  Odd, eh?

Now, suppose you are the US government, and you want to prevent widespread
usage of public key encryption by the general public.  Suppose your initial
heavy-handed attempts fail, and you don't want to be seen publicly to be
stomping on people's freedoms.  What do you do?  Why, you form a completely
independent (yeah, right) litigation company, hand them a bunch of patents,
and tell them not to license the technology to anyone who might sell products
to the general public.

Paranoid ravings aside, though, there is a general lack of awareness of the
need for encryption technology amongst members of the public.  Many
businesses use fax for confidential financial information; some even do
million-dollar cash transfers on the basis of faxed orders from clients. 


mathew
-- 
This disclaimer does not represent the views of Mantis Consultants Ltd

Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: gardner@convex.com (Steve Gardner)
Subject: Re: A Trial Balloon on Registered Keys
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 02:58:14 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <1992Oct30.170350.6576@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>
>Gerben Wierda posts an anti-American distortion, viz:
>"since the U.S. has the habit in trying to export its views all over the world
>through economic pressure".
>
>Nonsense.
	Nonsense yourself.  The U.S. frequently throws its
	weight around to get its way.  Fortunately the huge budget 
	deficit and the weak resolve on the part of the American people
	to pay it down will soon put an end to that.

	(Flames to /dev/null, you can't change the course of history
	by flaming the bearer of bad (to you) news.).


Newsgroups: sci.crypt,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,talk.politics.guns
From: olson@dstl86.gsfc.nasa.gov (Paul Olson)
Subject: Re: Registering "Assault Keys"
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Mission Operations and Data Systems
Date:  7 Nov 1992 11:47 EST  

In article <1992Nov7.083928.5583@henson.cc.wwu.edu>, n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes...
>ron@zooid.guild.org (Secret Mud) writes:
>[stuff deleted]
> 
>	Another difference is that saying "I don't remember" on the
>stand won't result in immediate bodily harm.

Plus the authorities would have to prove that you do remember.  Kinda tough. 
I'm going through a shitty divorce (no kids, no house, she just wants my
salary, and her old man's paying her bills).  I have direct experience with "I
don't remember".  Once it's all over, I'll let all of you know what CAN happen
in legal proceedings.

> 
>> - Ron Sharp.
> 
>Jim "I don't remember" Del Vecchio

       __  Paul J. Olson - VAX Systems Manager & Resident Amiga Addict 
  C=  ///  Voice -     301/286-4246, 301725-5501                       
 __  ///   DECnet-    DSTL86::OLSON                                    
 \\\///    Internet - olson@dstl86.gsfc.nasa.gov                       
  \XX/     Disclaimer: Statements in my messages are wholely my own.   
  AMIGA    "[the universe originated] as a quantum fluctuation         
            of absolutely nothing." - Guth & Steinhardt                    
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: ebrandt@jarthur.claremont.edu (Eli Brandt)
Subject: Re: Lead Balloons
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 03:36:51 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.125819.1637@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu> denning@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu writes:
>As someone has said, "A society that cannot enforce its laws invites
>disrespect for those laws."  But regulating crypto may not be a good
>solution either unless we can come up with an acceptable means.

I'm reassured to hear this.  :-) 

The issues are not really technical (though key registration would
obviously kill valuable protocols that do not use long-lived keys);
they are problems with the use of broad legal prohibition to
restrict actions which in a small minority cause harm.  I know,
you're only talking about key registration -- but that can be
phrased as prohibition of secure encryption.  (And "insecure
encryption" borders on oxymoronic...)  Such prohibition has
generally proved to be a poor move; see "War on Drugs".

Again, I'm ditching the Constitutional issues, because you can bet
the Supreme Court will.

>Someone asked whether John Gotti would have used encryption.  I don't
>know, but he didn't.

An interesting question is whether the FBI has ever been unable to
conduct an investigation because communications were found to be
encrypted.  People have given example of how wiretaps have been
successfully used to catch all sorts of unpleasant people; I should
think that examples of wiretaps that could *not* be carried out
would be more germane.

Hmm.  Wait until the FBI hears about quantum cryptography.  They'll
have a hard time requiring eavesdropping access to *that*.

>Dorothy Denning
>denning@cs.georgetown.edu

   Eli   ebrandt@jarthur.claremont.edu


Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: ntprlr@eskimo.celestial.com (NightProwler)
Subject: Re: PGP Users?
Organization: Ghost in the Shell
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 03:05:53 GMT

I hate to be naive, but what platform(s) does PGP 2.0 run on?  Can I use it
on a 80386-DOS based machine?

Also, how do I generate a public/private key pair?  How do I know that I 
haven't generated the same public/private pair as someone else?  This 
confuses me....
-- 
# NightProwler -- I live in the night	| "When the going gets wierd,
# Internet: NtPrlr@eskimo.celestial.com |  The Wierd turn Pro."
# CompuServe: 75730,243			|  --Dr. Hunter S. Thompson
# 			 [Standard Disclaimer Applies]
From: Erik.Lindano@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: (continuation on new encryption method)
Date: 7 Nov 92 04:25:34 GMT
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov  5 1992

Sorry about the break, but the message editor here does not seem
to allow more than 100 lines per message...
   
Anyway, to complete my post, here's the most interesting part:
   
================continues from previous message=========
 
 Apart from the intellectual challenge, the author of NuCrypt says 
 he's offering a fine evening in New York City to anyone capable of 
 decrypting the secret words.  Should you win, you'll have to get to 
 NYC yourself to collect but, once there, there should be no expenses 
 for you well into the wee hours... sounds like an easy big dinner
 to me...
  
 Any takers?
  ===================end of message=======

--- Maximus 2.00
Xref: sparky sci.crypt:4646 comp.org.eff.talk:6951 alt.privacy:2201 talk.politics.guns:24011
From: gurgle@netcom.com (Pete Gontier)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Registering "Assault Keys"
Date: 12 Nov 92 06:48:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.1992Nov12.064826.728
Organization: cellular

mjp@austin.ibm.com (Michael Phelps) writes:

>|> I understand that a ban on handguns would merely be a band-aid. That
>|> doesn't change my preference.

> If the goal is to make society safer, clearly the problem to be addressed is
>  violent crime, of all sorts.  Banning handguns isn't gonna solve it - but
>  you already know that!

Of course it won't *solve* it. You won't find any bigger an advocate
of solutions over fixes than me. However, as a temporary measure, I can
think of worse things than a ban on handguns, inaction being one.

> If the goal is to force your views and beliefs on millions of other people...

"Once again, Paul, you have crystallized my thoughts perfectly." -- D.L.

> If you feel that they are just too dangerous for people to own, consider the
>  numbers - there are about 200 million handguns in the US, and about 12000 
>  firearms homicides per year, and 1400 accidental firarms deaths.  That makes
>  firearms safer than automobiles.  

But the difference we both are likely to find more important is that I think
automobiles are useful and you think handguns are useful.
-- 
 Pete Gontier // EC Technology // gurgle@netcom.com
From: ajgd@miller.cs.uwm.edu (Andrew J G Delzer)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: DES questions/help needed
Date: 11 Nov 92 21:39:37 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.9.13


     I am a senior in a Software Engineering class at the University of
  Wisconsin-Milwaukee.  My software project is to write a MS Windows
  based program which demonstrates a DES Pseudo Random Number Generator.
     What I am in need of is a person who know DES encryption very well,
  who I can do correspondence with over the next 4 week or so.  
     I have the Denning Book "Cryptography and Data Security", but since 
  I have no cryptography background the book leaves me with MANY questions.

     If you know DES and would like to help a me out, not with the C 
  coding or windows coding, only understanding how DES works please
  send me a message.

     Thanks 
     Andrew J.G. Delzer

     AJGD@Miller.CS.UWM.EDU
 
Xref: sparky sci.crypt:4503 comp.org.eff.talk:6881 alt.privacy:2160 talk.politics.guns:23792
From: fmouse@wixer.cactus.org (Lindsay Haisley)
Subject: Re: Registered Keys - why the need?
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 22:43:28 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.094014.20105@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:

>Just give the environmentalists enough rope.  They've already started to try
>to pull us down the slippery slope with gas taxes, emissions controls,
>"alternative" energy policies...  I can just hear them now: "No one has the
>right to endanger the Planet by the anti-environmental act of driving their
>own vehicle.  Let them take public transportation."

Hey, guy, those of us that are "environmentalists" are that way from
necessity, not choice.  Take a look at the Club of Rome study or other
similar studies of population growth and decline and figure out for
yourself what happens to a species that overpopulates it's environment,
be it a puddle, a pond or a planet. They either exhaust their resources,
die of disease, or choke to death on their own crap.  Perhaps humans
have to option to make some intelligent collective decisions regarding
these matters, perhaps not.  The problems won't go away on their own.
Just talk to anyone who's lived in LA or Denver during summer smog
alerts, or who lives and works in areas where groundwater is
contaminated with ag chemicals or other polution, or folks who used to
make their livings fishing on the Medeterranean, which is now nearly a
dead ocean from a fisherman's point of view.  Fresh air, water and the
like are the responsibility of the people to protect, whether or not you
like specific regulations imposed by federal, state or local
governments.  Your attitude doesn't help at all.



-- 
"Everything works if you let it"    |                Lindsay Haisley
-- The Roadie                       |            fmouse@wixer.cactus.org
		                    |                    * * * *
	                            |               Austin, Texas, USA
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: karn@servo.qualcomm.com (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: Registering "Assault Keys"
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 09:10:40 GMT

In article <1992Nov2.105013.21270@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>Widely distributed firearms ownership is an insurance policy against tyranny.

Give me a break. This hasn't been a realistic view for well over a
century, if in fact it was ever true at all. Consider the Civil War as
a failed attempt by the South to exercise your "insurance policy". All
it did was kill well over half a million Americans, lay ruin to a good
part of the country, and wreck the economy in the rest. And almost 130
years later, the scars are still apparent in places.

The government has progressed a bit in its weaponry since then, too.
What are you going to do with your pistols, fend off an entire squadron
of A-10s? To quote Anon 7 from a Classic Trek episode: "I had no idea
you were so... formidable." Get real!

With all you raving gun nuts coming out so strongly in favor of
private encryption, the cause won't need very many enemies. Not only
are your "guns == crypto" fantasies scaring many people into thinking
all who use encryption must be dangerous loonies, you're also selling
crypto short.

That's because I firmly believe that crypto is a *much* stronger
weapon against tyranny than any mere projectile-shooting weapon ever
was. Just as the pen is mightier than the sword, the personal
computer, fax machine and telephone have proven themselves stronger
than the entire police and military resources of many modern
totalitarian regimes.  After all, the people of eastern Europe finally
accomplished what the entire Western military-industrial complex was
never able to do, and with almost no lost lives.  And strong
cryptography will ensure that these purely defensive "weapons" will
remain potent in the hands of the people.

Phil
From: poole@chsun.chuug.ch (Simon Poole)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Registering "Assault Keys"
Date: 12 Nov 92 22:20:54 GMT
Organization: CHUUG/EUnet
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

mjp@austin.ibm.com (Michael Phelps) writes:
: 
....
: Actually, the Swiss goverment is much older, seems to be quite democratic, and
: (BTW) allows ownership of firearms that we can't legally own in the US.  
: 

Actually, democratic government in a modern sense is fairly young in 
Switzerland. Ownership and in particular carrying of handguns is regulated
in all Kantons (~states), in general carrying of "concealable" weapons
is not allowed without a license. It is however fairly easy to purchase 
rifles. 
-- 
CHUUG/EUnet Switzerland				Simon Poole
Zweierstrasse 35	Tel: +41 1 291 45 80	poole@eunet.ch
CH-8004 Zuerich		Fax: +41 1 291 46 42	S=poole;P=EUnet;A=EUnet;C=CH
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,talk.politics.guns
From: mjp@austin.ibm.com (Michael Phelps)
Subject: Re: Registering "Assault Keys"
Originator: mjp@bwa.kgn.ibm.com
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 12:17:36 GMT
Reply-To: mjp@vnet.ibm.com (Michael J. Phelps)
Organization: IBM Kingston NY


In article <1992Nov10.044148.22135@netcom.com>, gurgle@netcom.com (Pete Gontier) writes:
|> pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:
[lots deleted]
|> 
|> I understand that a ban on handguns would merely be a band-aid. That
|> doesn't change my preference.

 I'm curious.  Why not?  

 If the goal is to make society safer, clearly the problem to be addressed is
  violent crime, of all sorts.  Banning handguns isn't gonna solve it - but
  you already know that!

 If the goal is to force your views and beliefs on millions of other people, then
  i'd have to respectfully ask you to think about the consequences of your
  actions;  this country is based on freedom and liberty - not conformity.  
  I respect your rights, but i demand the same consideration in return.  

 If you simply don't like handguns, fine.  Don't own one.  

 If you feel that they are just too dangerous for people to own, consider the
  numbers - there are about 200 million handguns in the US, and about 12000 
  firearms homicides per year, and 1400 accidental firarms deaths.  That makes
  firearms safer than automobiles.  
 
|> -- 
|>  Pete Gontier // EC Technology // gurgle@netcom.com

-- 
Michael Phelps, (external) mjp@vnet.ibm.com ..
                (internal) mjp@bwa.kgn.ibm.com .. mjp at kgnvmy         
 (and last but not least a disclaimer)  These opinions are mine..       
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Subject: Re: Registered Keys - why the need?
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 16:18:37 GMT
Organization: N/I

In article <1992Nov6.134822.5000@news.yale.edu> watt-alan@net.yale.edu (Alan Watt) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.214347.27535@netcom.com>, strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
[ ... ]
>|> In most of the world cars have been registered for many years, yet no
>|> democratic government has used that as a way to confiscate cars
>|> (except for those used in law violations).
[ ... ]
>True.  But no government where cars are registered has (yet) promoted
>a policy to restrict or ban private automobile ownership.  When one
>does, you can bet the registration lists will be used to aid enforcement.

I don't have the details, but I understand that Al Gore (new Vice President
elect of the U.S.) favors banning all automobiles more than 10 years old.

Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.folklore.urban,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: mccoy@ils.nwu.edu (Jim Mccoy)
Subject: Re: U.S. Constitution
Reply-To: mccoy@ils.nwu.edu
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 09:36:38 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.121745.21162@ulysses.att.com>, smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin) writes:
> In article <WCS.92Nov4184054@rainier.ATT.COM>, wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (Bill Stewart +1-908-949-0705) writes:
> > There's been one Amendment since then, restricting Congress's ability
> > to raise its own pay.  Originally proposed in the early 1800s,
> > and not having a time limit for its adoption, it was finally approved
> > by 3/4 of the states a few months ago.
> 
> Yes, and I think it's going to make for an interesting Supreme Court case.
> I seem to recall an earlier court ruling that ratifications be
> ``substantially contemporaneous'', which sure doesn't apply here.  And a
> lawsuit has been filed under that amendment, charging that a recent
> Congressional pay raise violates it.

Well, the archivist of the Constitution has added it, and I am not really
sure what role the court will play.  The Court really has no role in this
and I would really, really love to see them try to rule one way or another
and get squashed for it...

ObCrypt: It is interesting to note how easily/quickly people jumped to the
gun analogy when people start talking about restricting encryption.  Is
crypto the functional equivalent of a gun in an information age?

jim
-- 
Jim McCoy          |  PGP 2.0 Key md5 hash:
j-mccoy@nwu.edu    |  61323c49024cb089337c78a05aafe8c6
mccoy@ils.nwu.edu  |  finger mccoy@ils.nwu.edu for public key


Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: karn@servo.qualcomm.com (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: Registering "Assault Keys"
Originator: karn@servo.qualcomm.com
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 23:14:33 GMT

In article <1992Nov2.105013.21270@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>Widely distributed firearms ownership is an insurance policy against tyranny.

Give me a break. This hasn't been a realistic view for well over a
century, if in fact it was ever true at all. Consider the Civil War as
a failed attempt by the South to exercise your "insurance policy". All
it did was kill well over half a million Americans, lay ruin to a good
part of the country, and wreck the economy in the rest. And almost 130
years later, the scars are still apparent in places.

The government has progressed a bit in its weaponry since then, too.
What are you going to do with your pistols, fend off an entire squadron
of A-10s? To quote Anon 7 from a Classic Trek episode: "I had no idea
you were so... formidable." Get real!

With all you raving gun nuts coming out so strongly in favor of
private encryption, the cause won't need very many enemies. Not only
are your "guns == crypto" fantasies scaring many people into thinking
all who use encryption must be dangerous loonies, you're also selling
crypto short.

That's because I firmly believe that crypto is a *much* stronger
weapon against tyranny than any mere projectile-shooting weapon ever
was. Just as the pen is mightier than the sword, the personal
computer, fax machine and telephone have proven themselves stronger
than the entire police and military resources of many modern
totalitarian regimes.  After all, the people of eastern Europe finally
accomplished what the entire Western military-industrial complex was
never able to do, and with almost no lost lives.  And strong
cryptography will ensure that these purely defensive "weapons" will
remain potent in the hands of the people.

Phil

Newsgroups: sci.crypt,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy