From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.privacy,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: [comp.org.eff.talk] Latest FBI Wiretap Bill
Date: 4 Sep 92 14:55:00 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <Bu1yIL.5y3@mtholyoke.edu> jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
>In article <Bu0Iu2.92G@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>>>There are foolproof encodings for data, but the statistics of the
>>>messages will clearly reveal that they are encoded.  The very next thing
>>>you'll hear is the KNOCK, KNOCK, KNOCK of the FBI on your  door.  You
>>>will then have a chance to explain just why you are encoding your
>>>communications.  The judge may not be very sympathetic.
>>
>>  First they have to show that it IS encoded.
>
>Not necessarily.  You are based in the U.S.A.  You are experimenting with
>cryptographic technology.  Are you sending encryted messages to destinations
>outside of the USA?  If so, be warned that the NSA _will_ catch you at it. 

 Well I haven't posted any of this to Usenet, but I certainly have to
 Compuserve (I do this stuff on my home PC).  And I believe Compuserve 
 does go international.   My CI$ user ID is 73130,3147.  I post to various
 computer forums, especially DDJ, IBM, and Borland, also graphics, and 
 occasionally "issues".   Anyone is welcome to see if they can figure out
 whether any particular posting has any additional content.   But really, 
 I think that the stuff I'm doing is about equivalent in it's implications
 for national security to the way the Boston Globe cartoonist Paul Szep
 includes his daughter's name "Amy" in each one of his cartoons.


>They may not be able to break your encryption, if it's good, or may not even
>consider it important enough to try

 Definitely the latter, since all I'm putting in is the equivalent of "marker
 genes". i.e., what I'm testing is the ability to generate modified text which
 doesn't call attention to itself.  All I do is take my original, intended 
 message and run it through a program which "massages" it in small subtle ways
 based on the "message" being added, the latter being an arbitrary bit pattern.
 Is an arbitary bit pattern a "message"?   It's not a very practical encryption
 method, since it's LOW-bandwidth: maybe a few bits or a byte, per several
 hundred characters.  But if used to encrypt an actual message I do believe
 it would be hard to crack, or even detect.


>However, in the USA it is _illegal_ to send encrypted messages to destinations
>outside the USA, and a violation may fall into the hazy area of "National
>Security" where the Constitution appears to be little more than a piece
>of historical fiction, and "due process" may be very different from what
>you'd imagine.

 Sure, but what is an encrypted message?   If I take a block of text and 
 add the bit pattern "101101" to it by having a program alter a few words
 or phrases, change the line lengths, etc, so as to change certain stat-
 istical features of the text, have I sent an "encrypted message?  Maybe 
 if "101101" was a messaage to offshore submarines that "The convoy leaves
 Halifax Thursday AM".   But if the NSA thinks an arbitrary bit pattern is
 a "message", that alone would be an interesting discovery. 

 Frankly I don't have any idea what the laws on encryption are, and I'm not
 sure I believe your dire predictions about lack of due process, and I think
 its ridiculous for the NSA or anyone else to think that amateurs would
 be familiar with such legal esoterica.   


---peter