HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: spm2d@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Steven Miale)
Subject: Re: Registered Keys - why the need?
Organization: University of Virginia Computer Science Department
Distribution: inet
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 18:03:13 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.080407.25806@netcom.com>, strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
> 
> Michael T. Palmer argues that owning guns is a right guaranteed by the
> Constitution which the State has no right to intervene in.
> 
> He is mistaken, and the argument itself is a tired piece of NRA propaganda.
> A careful reading of the Constitution, as well as the interpretation of
> many Constitutional scholars and the courts is that the relevant provision
> is a Militia clause, not an individual gun clause. NRA types always
> omit the Militia part of the language of the Constitution, and quote
> the second part "the right to keep and bear arms" completely out of
> context, often concealing their shoddy rhetoric by capitalizing the
> leading "the" in the phrase to conceal that lead-in material has
> been suppressed.

Three problems with this argument, David:

First, the United States Senate, in a 1982 report titled 
"The Right to Keep and Bear Arms," has specifically said that
"what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen
to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."

Second, the amendment never says that it is only the *militia* who
has a right to keep and bear arms. It says that in order in *insure*
a well-regulated militia, the right to keep and bear arms shall not
be infringed. 

And even if we do conclude that only the militia can keep and bear
arms, here is Webster's definition of a militia:

	mi-li-tia \me-'lish-e\
	[L, military service, fr. milit-, miles]
	1: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call
	     only in emergency
	2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being
	     subject to call to military service
	-- mi-li-tia-man \-men\ n

Both these definitions are basically the same: people who *can* serve
in the military by way of the draft, *NOT* exclusively military
personnel.

Most people tend to assume that "militia" == "military"; this is
incorrect. Similar roots don't necessary imply similar meanings;
compare "pedestrian" and "pediatrist".

Steve


-- 
Steven Miale - spm2d@virginia.edu   | Don't blame me -
University of Virginia              | I voted Libertarian.
Charlottesville, Virginia           | 
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: uri@watson.ibm.com (Uri Blumenthal,35-016,8621267,)
Subject: Re: A Copper Balloon
Originator: uri@aixproj.watson.ibm.com
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:47:51 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

From article <1992Nov10.090133.1707@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu>, by denning@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu:
> .................I am also
> not content to let society drift in the direction of completely 
> unregulated crypto without attempting to understand the consequences
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> of that from the view of LE as well as the view of protecting privacy
> and proprietary interests.

Oh, why don't you listen... Maybe it's "professor syndrom"?

Repeat after me: 

YOU CAN REGULATE LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS, WHO ARE ABIDING THE 
LAWS ANYWAY AND THEREFORE ARE NOT A THREAT  [so there's no 
need/reason/right to deprive them of their privacy].  

YOU CAN NOT REGULATE CRIMINALS,  WHO ARE ALREADY VIOLATING 
MORE IMPORTANT LAWS [than using "unauthorized" encryption].

Now  let's get real and think [yes, please!]: if I'm planning
a murder, a major terrorist act, or something similar - would 
I be concerned about adding a [small] crime of using "illegal" 
encryption to my list?
[If your answer is yes - go get professional help.]

And no matter, whether you are going to "let the society"
use "unregulated crypto", or not - it's already here.
Welcome to the reality.
-- 
Regards,
Uri.		uri@watson.ibm.com
------------
<Disclaimer>
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: A Copper Balloon
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Date: 7 Nov 92 22:33:56 EST
Distribution: world
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

seems to me that these "balloons" on key registration all have one
fatal flaw: they violate the KISS principle. in a big way.

it is not practical, nor will it be effective without draconian
measures. encryption is essentially a very simple process. if i
were in a mood to be humorous i'd say that's probably what the
government fears the most. it's not beaurocratic enough. there
is no paper to be shredded. no wires to plug into. it's people
doing for themselves, without any kind of reliance on authority.

registration of any kind destroys that simple utility. suddenly
we have tons of "paperwork", more laws, more penalties, more
money flowing into the government, more possibility for abuse and 
more time for all involved. of course, those it was -supposed- to 
effect simply continue use basic principles of encryption that 
somehow fail to disappear just 'cause the powers that be are 
uncomfortable with them.

regulating encryption is as silly as regulating certain classes
of mathematical transformations. come to think of it, that's
-exactly- what it is.

jason

--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
`,`  If you want to smile - smile. Let people think you're nuts. We're  `,`
`,`  all a little nuts. Nuts is fun. Nuts keeps people wondering. Nuts  `,`
`,`  stay crunchy in milk!          smm@rodan.UU.NET (Steve Mansfield)  `,`
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`

Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: gardner@convex.com (Steve Gardner)
Subject: Re: A new encryption problem?
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 01:15:16 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 <1992Nov12.205330.23223@cactus.org> ritter@cactus.org (Terry Ritter) writes:
> But does society have the right, *after* due process, to see behind
> any secrecy veil a private citizen may erect?  While a citizen may
> not be compelled to testify against himself, his or her "houses,
> papers, and effects" are only protected from *unreasonable* "search
> and seizure" (that is, without a warrant issued for probable cause).
	What is this "society" you speak so blythely of?  From whence do
	its rights issue?  IMHO only individuals have rights.  When one uses
	the word "society" it is usually a cover for "government authority"
	which is often a cover for whichever group of elites has managed
	to wrest control of the coercive powers of the state.
	"Society" is just a smoke screen here.  Society never arrests people.
	Agents of the government do.  Society never exercises constitional
	rights, individuals do.  


> Since society *did* have an existing right to penetrate secrecy
> (*after* due process) under The Constitution, we would have to
> argue that there is no social need for such access under new
> security technology.
	The constitution gives no rights to society.  It spells out 
	what a group of individuals called the the government can and 
	can't do.  It also tells what rights other individuals (not 
	necessarily part of the government) have when they come in 
	contact with the coercive power of the state.  The raison 
	d'etre of the constitution  (and particularly the bill of rights) is 
	that the government is made up of individuals that have a perfectly
	human tendency to abuse the rights of other individuals.  
	Fuzzy thinking about "society" misses this point and tends to
	minimize the importance of individual rights.
	

>Can anyone believe that no cases will exist under which society will 
>require such access? 
	Society??  More fuzzy thinking.


 
>Thus, is punishment for failure to allow access (*after* due process) 
>somehow not a legitimate law?
	Yes.

> I think it would be easier to argue for legislation setting higher
> standards for warrants than it would be to argue that all personal
> information is ultimately private under all circumstances.
	Recent history has shown that government can and will abuse
	its limits.  It has become way too powerful already and you
	want to give it more power.  Hasn't its power corrupted it enough
	already?  Do you think it needs to be further corrupted?


						smg


Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: tom@ulysses.att.com (Tom Smith)
Subject: Re: ATM security question
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 18:26:40 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ, USA

In article <1992Nov6.013029.7294@panix.com> oppedahl@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl) writes:
>In <1992Nov5.184546.5854@ulysses.att.com> tom@ulysses.att.com (Tom Smith) writes:

>>On another newsgroup, there is a lot of discussion about Automatic
>>Teller Machines and the Personal Identification Number (PIN) associated

>Which newsgroup?  I'd like to follow that.

check out alt.folklore.urban ...

Tom Smith.
tom@ulysses.att.com

"Hold these pies."
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: Registered Keys - why the need?
Date: 6 Nov 92 08:23:59 GMT
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences

In article <7851@transfer.stratus.com> cme@ellisun.sw.stratus.com (Carl Ellison) writes:
}
}My question remains: how will key registration preserve the ability to
}wiretap?  If the damage done by wiretaps has been so extensive, unless the
}OC and drug traffic figures are incredibly stupid,

If you mean the statistics, they're completely unreliable (truth being the
standard).  They're all made by agencies with conflicts of interest.  It's
standard practice for these agencies to make up numbers out of thin air, as
they aren't even checked much of the time.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Xref: sparky sci.crypt:4351 comp.org.eff.talk:6776 alt.privacy:2092 talk.politics.guns:23514
From: morpheus@entropy.mcds.com (morpheus)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Registering "Assault Keys"
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 92 18:43:30 EST
Organization: the pickle factory at Langley, Virginia

ron@zooid.guild.org (Secret Mud) writes:

> I believe in being able to protect my data, until I am presented with a court
> order to allow it to be searched.

I believe in being able to protect my data. (note period) ...

Hypothetically say I have all my data encrypted with 'mega-DES ]I[' - how will
an "ummm... I can't remember the key, sorry" hold up in court (assuming said
court had the papers they need, etc).  Would that be perjury?  Can they
subpeona a mental construct?  What could they legally do?  (legally as in per
constitution, etc.  Not the FBI's version..)


                        --  morpheus@entropy.mcds.com --
                   Who do you trust when everyone's a crook?
                                      -qr
From: lauren@vortex.COM (Lauren Weinstein)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: PRIVACY Forum digest
Date: 8 Nov 92 01:26:15 GMT
Organization: Vortex Technology

Greetings.  I've noted quite a bit of privacy related discussion in
this group lately.  This message is just a reminder that the
moderated PRIVACY Forum Internet digest is available to discuss a
wide range of privacy related issues.  For information about the
digest, via the automated listserv system:

Please send the line:

information privacy

at the start of the BODY of a message (subject doesn't matter) mailed to:

privacy-request@cv.vortex.com

Information about the digest will be returned to you automatically.

--Lauren--
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: Registered Keys - why the need?
From: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin)
Date: 5 Nov 92 16:51:34 GMT
Organization: Beckman Instruments, Inc.

In <1992Nov3.090942.1626@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu> denning@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu writes:

>If law enforcement loses the ability to conduct court-authorized 
>taps, they will have to use other means if even possible, such as
>breaking and entering.  This is not necessarily better in terms of
>protecting liberties and privacy.
> 

YES IT IS.  Law enforcement is likely to leave some evidence if they are
physically present.  Tapping bits may leave no trail.  I would like a
requirement that (1) all wiretaps must be performed by a public utility
company, and (2) they must publish the list of numbers tapped within 1 year
of the tap.  With (1), there is a reasonable chance that the FBI won't
perform undocumented taps, because, if found out, the person being tapped
probably cannot be prosecuted at all .  With (2), if someone is tapped,
they would eventually find out, and be able to sue the government for
invasion of privacy.  However, this paragraph is not relevent to sci.crypt,
the group I am reading this thread on.

...

>I believe I said this before, but let me remind everyone that the
>government has not proposed that keys be registered.

That's because they don't see any benefit to it, unless they routinely 
decrypt messages to ensure that people are using only registered keys. 
(It's time to bring back the thread on braided stream encryption --- that
shows a benefit to adding random streams to multiple messages, so law
enforcement cannot be assured that all the plaintext from an encrypted
message has been decrypted.)

>...  I believe that 
>Ron Rivest was the first to make this suggestion.

His interest is that he claims that most encryption is covered by his
patent, so he has a right to the registered keys as a liscensing
requirement.  I don't know what your motives are --- I am forced to assume
that you think registering keys would be of benefit to law enforcement, in
spite of evidence to the contrary.  
--
Arthur L. Rubin: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (work) Beckman Instruments/Brea
216-5888@mcimail.com 70707.453@compuserve.com arthur@pnet01.cts.com (personal)
My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer.
My interaction with our news system is unstable; please mail anything important.
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: oppedahl@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl)
Subject: Re: ATM security question
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 01:30:29 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1992Nov5.184546.5854@ulysses.att.com> tom@ulysses.att.com (Tom Smith) writes:

>On another newsgroup, there is a lot of discussion about Automatic
>Teller Machines and the Personal Identification Number (PIN) associated
>with an account/card.  There is controversy about whether or not
>an encrypted version of the PIN is encoded onto the magnetic stripe
>on the card.

Which newsgroup?  I'd like to follow that.

>Facts, anyone?

Yes, there is.  This means the ATM can match your card to the PIN
you entered at the ATM, even if the phone lines are cut.  Scary, huh?

Well, it means the ATM can match _if it has the key_.  Each
issuer has its own key.  The ATM you visit probably can match the
card PIN with the entered PIN only if the bank that runs it issued
your card.

In plainspeak, if your card works in the machine _only_ because
of Cirrus or Plus or NYCE, then the PIN authentication takes place
somewhere else.  Or not at all if the lines are down.


Carl Oppedahl AA2KW  (intellectual property lawyer)
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY  10112-0228
voice 212-408-2578     fax 212-765-2519

Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: mjp@austin.ibm.com (Michael Phelps)
Subject: Re: the Right of Privacy (was Re: A Trial Balloon to Ban Encryption?)
Originator: mjp@bwa.kgn.ibm.com
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 92 14:42:46 GMT
Reply-To: mjp@vnet.ibm.com (Michael J. Phelps)
Organization: IBM Kingston NY


In article <1992Nov6.075448.21716@news.cs.indiana.edu>, Marc VanHeyningen <mvanheyn@whale.cs.indiana.edu> writes:
|> Thus said strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight):
|> >In response to a comment that the Feds have the right to regulate
|> >communications, Jyrki quotes the first amendment back at me.
|> >
|> >But it depends on interpretation. Regulating channels is not the
|> >same as regulating speech. A strict constructionist would say
|> >that one can say what one likes into the air via one's unaided
|> >voice. But as soon as technical means intervene (such as the use of
|> >a megaphone in a public park, or the use of e-mail) the government
|> >has the right to regulate those means. One is still free to talk,
|> >and thus the protection isn't violated.
|> 
|> >By the way, even strict construction has limits, as in the Supreme
|> >Court decision that the right to free speech does not extend to
|> >falsely crying "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

This came up in t.p.g, and this answer was posted.  I think it sums this up
quite well..


From: gt1111a@prism.gatech.EDU (Vincent Fox)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: So... Why have a standing army?
Date: 14 Oct 92 17:52:13 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

[edited]

No, no, no. Look the 1st doesn't even enter into in any such court case.
You would be on trial for unlawful injury to others assuming anyone was
injured. The 1st amendment in fact does allow you to say anything you
damn well please, anywhere you please. It is up to legal code separate
from that to deal with accusations of slander, libel, and similar 
"damage to others" categories.

[edited]

|> -- 
|> Marc VanHeyningen    mvanheyn@whale.cs.indiana.edu    MIME & RIPEM accepted
|> 
|> 
|> Patriotism is, in fact, the *first* refuge of the scoundrel.

-- 
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..
From: pearson@angmar.llnl.gov (Peter Pearson)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Wanted: DES for Motorola 6805.
Date: 12 Nov 92 22:06:20 GMT
Reply-To: pearson6@llnl.gov
Distribution: usa
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Lab

Pointers appreciated. Thanks.
-- 
pearson6@llnl.gov
Xref: sparky sci.crypt:4487 comp.org.eff.talk:6874 alt.privacy:2156 talk.politics.guns:23782
From: palmer@icat.larc.nasa.gov (Michael T. Palmer)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Registered Keys - why the need?
Date: 9 Nov 92 12:36:27 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: icat.larc.nasa.gov

strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:

>Michael T. Palmer argues that owning guns is a right guaranteed by the
>Constitution which the State has no right to intervene in.

>He is mistaken, and the argument itself is a tired piece of NRA propaganda.
>A careful reading of the Constitution, as well as the interpretation of
>many Constitutional scholars and the courts is that the relevant provision
>is a Militia clause, not an individual gun clause. NRA types always
>omit the Militia part of the language of the Constitution, and quote
>the second part "the right to keep and bear arms" completely out of
>context, often concealing their shoddy rhetoric by capitalizing the
>leading "the" in the phrase to conceal that lead-in material has
>been suppressed.

Wrongo, dude.  You and I are the militia, according to federal law.  That's
why the Director for Civilian Marksmanship is funded by Congress.  "NRA-
types" do NOT conceal the first part of the ammendment... it is crucial to
understanding the intent.

Now, perhaps you believe Parade magazine and other constitutional "scholars"
that the militia is really the Army.  I suggest you read the Constitution
again.  The language used is very important.  Whenever the army or navy or
other land forces are referenced, they are NEVER referred to as the "militia."
Please... actually READ the thing.

And it is NOT the interpretation of the courts that the 2nd ammendment
refers to the national guard or anything.  I suggest you find "The
Embarrasing Second Ammendment," which was published in the Yale Law
Review.  The author set out to prove just what you said, that the 2nd
did not, in fact, guarrantee individuals the right to bear arms.  But in
his research, he found just the opposite was true.  I don't have the
issue and date handy, but I'll find it for you if you're interested.

Tsk, tsk.  "Shoddy rhetoric."  "Tired piece of NRA propaganda."  Whenever
you don't have a case, just try to yell louder than the other guy, right?

-- 
Michael T. Palmer, M/S 152, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681
Voice: 804-864-2044,   FAX: 804-864-7793,   Email: m.t.palmer@larc.nasa.gov
PGP 2.0 Public Key now available -- Consider it an envelope for your e-mail
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: thompson@sun425.nas.nasa.gov (Keith C. Thompson)
Subject: Re: New Encryption Method - A Challenge!
Organization: NAS, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 92 01:56:10 GMT

In article <n0e48t@ofa123.fidonet.org> Erik.Lindano@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
> 
> Well, I said I wouldn't, but I went and read Loen's long FAQ post 
> anyway. Just to show that I am equanimous. According to what I glean 
> from his words, decrypting NuCrypt output should be an absolute, 
> total, unmitigated pea-soup task for any self-respecting 
> cryptologist (-grapher?). The challenge opened widely nearly every 
> fundamental avenue of attack, as mentioned in Loen's post: 
> 
>  2. "Known plaintext" attack.  The NuCrypt challenge offers complete 
>      availability of the original plaintext, except one word or two. 
>      You are only asked to decrypt this ONE WORD or TWO, nothing 
>      more! Plain English. Eight chars. Piece of cake.

Well, technically this is not a "known plaintext" attack that you are
offering.  The idea with a known plaintext attack is to recover the
key, not part of the plaintext.  This sort of misunderstanding on your
part is what is driving the reaction that you are seeing.  Sorry to
be so blunt.

>      
>  3. "Chosen plaintext" attack. Analysts have been invited to submit 
>      plaintext of their own choosing - 99%!  Only ONE unknown word 
>      would be ebedded in your own plaintext, and the whole then
>      encrypted. You are only asked to decrypt this ONE WORD having
>      both the plaintext and ciphertext of ALL OTHER WORDS. What 
>      could be easier?

See the comments above.  Same problem.

>  6. To make things REAL easy, you've been asked to suggest any other 
>     input or test method of your own choosing.

Well, I have.  You did not respond to my email, although I have no
way of knowing if you received it, but I have received no responses.

>  
> Ach, meine Damen un Herren... all these cryptomancers, I mean, 
> cryptopterists, and no takers!  No takers... shame.  People here 
> seem to have a very low cryptolibido.  Lack of cryptamines, maybe.  
> 
> My friend says he's considering adding the cost of a roundript ticket
> to New York City to the wining-and-dining prize.

Well, he is getting closer to the point were somebody is going to take
him up on it.

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