HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gardner@convex.com (Steve Gardner)
Subject: Re: PGP v. 2.1 Released
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:34:20 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 <1992Dec10.185107.10925@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>Finally, I trust the police and intelligence agencies of our
>government.  They are not a bunch of fascists out to get the innocent,
>as some messages sometimes imply, but hard-working fellow-Americans
>trying to do a very difficult job.
	Sorry, but secret agencies are inherently un-trustworthy.  They
	are set up with good intentions but they are run by humans.
	Humans don't seem to be able to use great power in secret without
	abusing it.  Our history is full of examples of our intelligence
	agencies abusing their secret capabilities to suppress legitimate
	dissent and social change.  Fortunately, they were often unsuccessful
	but it was because of trusting souls like yourself that they 
	ran as far amok as they did.  Don't forget that the CIA experimented
	with LSD on unsuspecting people, the FBI spied on Martin Luther King,
	and military intelligence is currently conducting a witch hunt 
	against homosexuals in the military.  The fact is that our national
	security organs are no more trustworthy than anyone elses.  Now 
	that the cold war is over they must be SIGNIFICANTLY cut back or
	we americans will feel the brunt of their "covert wars".

	If we fail to trim back the national security state in the wake of
	the demise of the USSR we will undoubtedly have to fight them 
	for our constitutional rights in the near future.  Idle hands are
	the devils workshop folks.  Isn't that pretty obvious?
	
							smg

Newsgroups: alt.security.pgp,alt.security,sci.crypt,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.privacy,alt.society.civil-disob
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: PGP v. 2.1 Released
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Distribution: alt.security.pgp,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.privacy,alt.society.civil-disob
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:52:29 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.183032.14229@netcom.com>, strnlght@netcom (David Sternlight) writes:
>
>Leaving aside the inflammatory language in "mathew"'s post (I still
>can't figure out if that's his last name or what), his message
>suggests that violation of the law by using PGP in the U.S. is a
>form of civil disobedience analogous to the Black freedom struggle.
>
>First, the analogy is odious; the two issues are not morally
>comparable and anyone who cannot see this is in need of advice.

OK, I'm reporting - what advice do I need and from whom?  Should I
report to the nearest re-education center so that I can get rid of the
silly idea that people should be free to use cyptography without
government interference?

>Second, since he writes from the U.K., it's like counseling someone
>else to take the law into their own hands with no personal
>responsibility-- a kind of let's you and him fight.

Looking at the U.S. government's habit of deciding how to run the
world and using force to implement the decisions, this is not a
very accurate description, though there's a point.

I don't know details of the Black freedom struggle civil disobedience,
but Gandhi-style civil disobedience about cryptography could be an
option.  

Followups directed out of sci.crypt.

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: alt.security.pgp,alt.security,sci.crypt,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: PGP v. 2.1 Released
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 09:37:38 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.185107.10925@netcom.com>, strnlght@netcom.com (David
Sternlight) writes:

|>
|>I have mixed feelings about Uri's message.
|>
|>Until the legal status is resolved, one might wish to get rid of the
|>PGP "tags" which are overt confirmation that one is using a public key
|>system. On the other hand, I disagree in the sense that if unlicensed
|>use of public key systems REALLY IS a violation of law (not "is
|>asserted to be by PKP")--for example after a court case--then his
|>suggestions is tantamount to publicly advocating the concealing of a
|>legal violation, which I cannot support.
|>
|>If one feels PKP is over-broad in their claims, the way to deal with
|>this is by direct resolution. If one feels PKP is legally on firm ground
|>but thinks there "shouldn't be" patent protection for software, or some
|>such, again the way to deal with this is by trying to get the law changed.
|>I'm not one who supports illegal acts in the face of what one thinks
|>is unfairness.

There is nbo such thing as a Patent for software in Europe. PKP's claim has no
validity here. Nor for that matter do the restrictions of the FBI.


|>Finally, I trust the police and intelligence agencies of our
|>government.  They are not a bunch of fascists out to get the innocent,
|>as some messages sometimes imply, but hard-working fellow-Americans
|>trying to do a very difficult job. Yes, there have been, and may
|>continue to be some individual abuses, sometimes by senior people, but
|>the way to deal with that is via strong internal and external
|>watchdogs, and by clear definition of what is, and isn't to be
|>permitted.

Yeah like MI5 went and bugged their Prime Minister, sure you can trust the CIA
and FBI, hell they are American, makes a difference you know.


--

Phill Hallam-Baker
Newsgroups: alt.security.pgp,alt.security,sci.crypt,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
From: googs@pravda.webo.dg.com (Joe Gugliemino)
Subject: Re: PGP v. 2.1 Released
Date: 14 Dec 92 21:36:50 GMT
	<1992Dec10.185107.10925@netcom.com>
	<1992Dec11.070917.4744@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
Organization: NSDD/ONSD, Data General Corp., Westboro, MA


[] Regarding Re: PGP v. 2.1 Released;
[] frechett@spot.Colorado.EDU (-=Runaway Daemon=-) writes:
 -rd-> Nntp-Posting-Host: spot.colorado.edu

 -rd-> -----BEGIN PGP MESS-----

 -rd-> Put -----BEGIN PGP etc etc.. around all your messages.. encrypted or not.

 -rd-> I am admitting no guilt here.  I simply like the way it looks. 

 -rd-> -----END PGP MESS-----   ;)

 -rd-> 	ian 


This stuff doesn't have much to do with t.p.g, and has been running in
the group for quite a while.  Please check your newsgroups before you
crosspost.  Thanks.
--

                             Later,

                             Joe Gugliemino

(new address)
       |
       V
googs@pravda.webo.dg.com             Voice: (508) 870-6318
Joe_Gugliemino@dg.com                      Phone messages routinely routed
Data General Corp., Westboro, Ma.             to the nearest black hole...
Xref: sparky alt.security.pgp:184 alt.security:5079 sci.crypt:5697 talk.politics.misc:64349 talk.politics.guns:25243
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.security.pgp,alt.security,sci.crypt,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: PGP v. 2.1 Released
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 15:17:46 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
> ... again the way to deal with this is by trying to get the law changed.
> I'm not one who supports illegal acts in the face of what one thinks
> is unfairness.

Why, yes.  Them pesky niggers shoulda just shut up and sat quietly and waited
for the law to change.

> Finally, I trust the police and intelligence agencies of our
> government.

Aww, how cute.  Do you also believe in Father Christmas?  Ho ho ho.

> Recent trials of government officials, and recent use of independent
> prosecutors, whatever one thinks of the substance, go a long way
> toward compelling caution by those who would abuse their privileged
> and trusted positions in the FBI and intelligence services.

Quite.  I'm sure next time they'll be a lot more careful not to get caught. 
Otherwise... why, they might get a nasty slap on the wrist and be told not to
do it again.


mathew
-- 
You can communicate with me securely via PGP 2.1.  For information, send mail
to pgpinfo@mantis.co.uk.  For a big block of keys, mail pgpkeys@mantis.co.uk.
PGP public key fingerprint = B2 41 30 5F 5B 20 B9 D5  7C 8F 75 88 7C DA D8 C5

Newsgroups: alt.security.pgp,alt.security,sci.crypt,talk.politics.misc
From: prz@sage.cgd.ucar.edu (Philip Zimmermann)
Subject: Re: PGP 2.1 site list
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:27:57 GMT

In article <92353.095746JDG111@psuvm.psu.edu> <JDG111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>Concerning the difficulties of CRC errors in PGP21.ZIP files - I too had the
>same problem when FTPing from numerous sites.  PKZIP 1.10 would always give
>CRC errors, and the files were corrupted when they were unzipped.  It
>appears that version 1.93 Alpha of PKZIP was used to ZIP up PGP 2.1.  WHen I
>used 1.93 to unzip it, it worked fine.  PKZIP 1.10 will *NOT* work with the
>PGP 2.1 release ZIP files however.
>
>--Douglas Good,  Penn State University

I just used PKUNZIP version 1.1 on MSDOS to unzip the pgp21.zip and
pgp21src.zip files I downloaded from the distribution via FTP.  It
works for me.  No CRC errors.  I'm not doubting your report, but could
there be any other technical errors that could account for this problem?

Newsgroups: alt.security.pgp,alt.security,sci.crypt
From: mkovacs@Nimitz.mcs.kent.edu (Michael Kovacs)
Subject: Re: PGP v. 2.1 Released
Organization: Kent State University
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 18:00:32 GMT

In article <rich.724034533@pencil>, rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel) writes:
|> In <1992Dec10.185107.10925@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
|> ]Recent trials of government officials, and recent use of independent
|> ]prosecutors, whatever one thinks of the substance, go a long way
|> ]toward compelling caution by those who would abuse their privileged
|> ]and trusted positions in the FBI and intelligence services.
|> 
|> The justice dept did everything it its power to impede walsh's investigation
|> in the iran-contra affair, finally resorting to the "national security"
|> argument to suppress evidence.
|> At any rate, the law which established the office of the independent
|> prosecutor (a post-watergate reform) was allowed to lapse this year.
|> As of 1993, the independent prosecutor will be a thing of the past.

Bill Clinton has announced his support for reinstituting independent
prosecutor legislation in the next session of Congress.

-- 
                            -(o) (o)-
   Michael J Kovacs             U
 mkovacs@mcs.kent.edu         \___/
                               ***
Newsgroups: alt.security.pgp,comp.sys.next.sysadmin
From: eoliver@ralph.cs.haverford.edu (Erik Oliver)
Subject: PGP v2.1 and NeXT
Summary: Difficulty Compiling Pgp 2.1 on NS3.0
Organization: Haverford College Computer Science Department
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 02:17:52 GMT

After, having no luck getting PGP 2.0 to compile on the NeXT ( I didn't
try too hard,) I was excited that 2.1 had special make settings for the
NeXT.

Unfortunately, they are wrong NeXT computers run MACH not BSD.
	Change, the makefile.unx line for next: to indicate MACH instead
		of BSD.

	The other problem occurs in the system.c source code file,
		the problem, the remove function defined in that file
		has a different prototype then the one defined in one
		of the standard header fiels that system.c includes,
		the solution add the word 'const' before the char *name
		variable in the remove function of system.c.

These problems were extremely minor, and are easily fixable...

-Erik
(Public key available by finger.)
Newsgroups: alt.security.pgp,alt.security,sci.crypt,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Subject: Re: PKP/RSA comments on PGP legality
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 09:47:55 GMT


Amanda Walker posts a message too delicious to let pass without underlining.
She says that if the USG considers crypto to be munitions, then she's
entitled to it under the militia clause of the Constitution.

Just curious, Amanda--does that mean you also think you have the right
to keep and bear your own nukes?

David
Newsgroups: alt.security,sci.crypt,alt.security.pgp
From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Subject: Re: PGP v. 2.1 Released
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 20:57:27 GMT


Several here have missed my point about Uri Blumenthal, IBM, and
RSA.

Blumenthal is certainly entitled to his opinion.

Often here, though, some post opinions in a context which makes
them appear quasi-factual, usually by association with a seemingly
logical set of phrases.

In the instant case, a lot of very smart people at IBM (and
elsewhere) trust RSA. Thus Blumenthal's statement that he
doesn't deserves no more weight than any other expression of
Newsgroups: alt.security,sci.crypt,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc,alt.security.pgp
From: Marc VanHeyningen <mvanheyn@whale.cs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: PGP v. 2.1 Released
X-Quoted: 22%
Organization: Computer Science Dept, Indiana University
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:43:52 -0500

Thus said palmer@icat.larc.nasa.gov (Michael T. Palmer):
>cme@ellisun.sw.stratus.com (Carl Ellison) writes:
>
>>Sounds like a good reason to switch from PGP to RIPEM.
>
>Okay, could you please point us to where we can find a PGP-type program
>that uses RIPEM?  I would love to not have to even *consider* patent stuff
>when using a crypt program.

Since you're posting from a .gov site, I think you don't have worries in
that regard.

RIPEM is not a standard, it's a program.  The standard is PEM (RFCs
1113-1115, if memory serves, though RIPEM is not complete as they
specify.)

Also, RIPEM IS NOT YET WIDELY AVAILABLE.  It is in use by a small number
of beta testers, who have been asked not to redistribute it further.  It
is not on any public FTP site that I know of, nor should it be.  It's
ready for release pending either approval of the powers that be at
Michigan State for use of their equipment for its distribution or
someone else being willing to distribute it.  Unfortunately, it's
possible that a distributor could be found responsible if someone
outside the U.S. gets the code from him.

I really wish RIPEM's beta testers would stop advocating its use as
though you could get it and use it today.  It will be soon.  It's not
now (or, if it is, it's against the express wishes of the author.)

(BTW, I had a somewhat positive response in alt.config, and will
probably newgroup an alt.security.ripem once release happens.)
-- 
Marc VanHeyningen    mvanheyn@whale.cs.indiana.edu    MIME & RIPEM accepted
Oh, so UNIX uses slashes for directory stuff!  Did they get that idea
from MS-DOS?  
		- <name withheld to prevent terminal embarassment>
Xref: sparky alt.security:5141 sci.crypt:5861
Newsgroups: alt.security,sci.crypt
Subject: Re: PGP as a World Standard
From: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin)
Date: 16 Dec 92 23:12:33 GMT
Organization: Beckman Instruments, Inc.

In <1992Dec16.171637.11957@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:


>mathew reveals his intelligence, forensic skill, and brilliiant
>logic with the stunning argument "Go to hell." Of course. That
>clarifies everything.

>Then he says "We've standardized on PGP." as if he were justifying
>something.

>Let's take a closer look at that. PGP 2.x was written in Europe
>based on PGP1.0. PGP 1.0 was illegally exported from the U.S.
>In the U.S. PGP was based on RSA's patents, and used them
>without permission, i.e. it was stolen goods.

Let's go over these points one at a time.

>PGP 1.0 was illegally exported from the US

That's the US government's problem, or the exporter's.  As the description
of PGPs protocols would be legal to export, there isn't really even a
"fruit of stolen goods" attack, unless PGP 2.x has code fragments from PGP
1.0 which weren't taken from programs.

>In the U.S. PGP was based on RSA's patents, and used them
>without permission

That's irrelevant.  PGP 2.x probably uses the material covered by RSA's
patents, but PGP 1's use of that material is completely irrelevant.  Use of
PGP 1 or 2.x in the United States may infringe on RSA's patents, but RSA or
PKP has to convince a court.  As far as _I_ know, no suits have been filed.
--
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: alt.security,sci.crypt
From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Subject: Re: PGP as a World Standard
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 20:27:05 GMT


Arthur Rubin and others evade/dance around/avoid (I'm trying hard not
to give offense here--pick some other characterization if you like)
the issue by claiming a program is an algorithm and thus exempt. It
is not, and the law is quite specific on this point, no matter
what logical sophistry of a non-legal character may be argued.

While I've got your attention, folks, I'd like to say (nothing to
do with Rubin) that a lot of the discussion here amounts to extended
sophistry. What I mean by that is that someone comes up with a
conclusion (PKP are bad guys or some such), and then invents a
hypothesis (usually by mind-reading their motives) to prove it,
and presents the whole as if it were a logical argument.

This is usually exposed when the hypothesis is challenged and
the response is to offer a different hypothesis to prove the
same pre-conceived conclusion.

David
From: marc.thibault@synapse.org (Marc Thibault) 
Newsgroups: alt.security
Subject: Re: PGP v. 2.1 Released
Date: 12 Dec 92 20:48:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: SYNAPSE BBS - GATINEAU, QUEBEC - 819-561-4321
Reply-To: marc.thibault@synapse.org (Marc Thibault) 

From: marc@tanda.isis.org (Marc Thibault)

In <1992Dec10.185107.10925@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
]Recent trials of government officials, and recent use of independent
]prosecutors, whatever one thinks of the substance, go a long way
]toward compelling caution by those who would abuse their privileged
]and trusted positions in the FBI and intelligence services.

        Has everyone already forgotten the Inslaw affair? This is a
        _still ongoing_ abuse of power which seems to have included a
        termination "with extreme prejudice" _after_ the whistle was
        blown.

               Marc Thibault
---
 . 1st 1.02b #881 . Oxford Mills, Ontario, Canada; Global Warming Appreciated
                                                                                                            
Xref: sparky alt.security:5108 sci.crypt:5783 talk.politics.guns:25355 talk.politics.misc:64650 alt.security.pgp:232
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.security,sci.crypt,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc,alt.security.pgp
Subject: Re: PGP as a World Standard
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 14:57:34 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
> mathew reveals his intelligence, forensic skill, and brilliiant
> logic with the stunning argument "Go to hell." Of course. That
> clarifies everything.

Well, what do you expect if you go around demanding that the rest of
the world has to jump through hoops because America says so?

> Then he says "We've standardized on PGP." as if he were justifying
> something.

It's simply a statement of fact.  I suspect that 99% of public key
encrypted messages outside the US are encrypted using PGP.

> Let's take a closer look at that. PGP 2.x was written in Europe
> based on PGP1.0. PGP 1.0 was illegally exported from the U.S.
> In the U.S. PGP was based on RSA's patents, and used them
> without permission, i.e. it was stolen goods.

Yes, *in the US*.

It wasn't illegal or stolen outside the US.

> Thus PGP 2.0 is based on stolen goods.

In the US, yes.  Here, it's perfectly legal.

> Any more comments wrapping yourself in the moral high ground,
> mathew?

Yes:  It is interesting that you choose to go off on this "moral high
ground" tangent.  I didn't at any stage claim to be taking any "moral
high ground", so what is your point?

Are you scared to address the point I actually did make?  Here, I'll
remind you of it:

If *you* have a problem with the worldwide standard (PGP) because of
*your* stupid laws, it is up to *you* to do the work to get around that
problem.

Like too many Americans, you assume that the rest of the world exists
for your benefit, and must follow your laws.  Well, I hate to be the
one to break it to you, but that isn't the case.  The legal hassles
concerning PGP are yours and yours only, so *you* can sort 'em out.


mathew
-- 
You can communicate with me securely via PGP 2.1.  For information, send mail
to pgpinfo@mantis.co.uk.  For a big block of keys, mail pgpkeys@mantis.co.uk.
PGP public key fingerprint = B2 41 30 5F 5B 20 B9 D5  7C 8F 75 88 7C DA D8 C5

Newsgroups: alt.security,sci.crypt,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc,alt.security.pgp
From: Marc VanHeyningen <mvanheyn@whale.cs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: PGP as a World Standard
Followup-To: alt.security.pgp
X-Quoted: 23%
Organization: Computer Science Dept, Indiana University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:22:33 -0500

(What is this doing in talk.politics.guns?)

Thus said mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>:
>Go to hell.  We've chosen PGP as the standard, and it's a perfectly good
>standard.  If your country's stupid laws mean you can't use PGP, *you* can do
>the hard work to get around those laws.

You've chosen PGP as the standard?  Don't you really mean you use PGP
because it's the only thing that's widely available right now?  What
other standards did you consider in this "choice"?

For that matter, do you mean you use PGP 1.0 as the standard, or PGP 2.0,
or PGP 3.0 when it comes out... what is this "standard"?
-- 
Marc VanHeyningen    mvanheyn@whale.cs.indiana.edu    MIME & RIPEM accepted


All .signature quotes are false.
Newsgroups: alt.security,sci.crypt,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc,alt.security.pgp
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: PGP as a World Standard
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 16:17:19 GMT

strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>
>mathew reveals his intelligence, forensic skill, and brilliiant
>logic with the stunning argument "Go to hell." Of course. That
>clarifies everything.
>
>Then he says "We've standardized on PGP." as if he were justifying
>something.
>
>Let's take a closer look at that. PGP 2.x was written in Europe
>based on PGP1.0. PGP 1.0 was illegally exported from the U.S.
>In the U.S. PGP was based on RSA's patents, and used them
>without permission, i.e. it was stolen goods.
>
>Thus PGP 2.0 is based on stolen goods.

PGP was not stolen. Its GNU copylefted, so there is no reason that
anyone can't modify it as they please. Furthermore, there is no
evidence that the people who modifyed it were the ones who exported
it, so there is no reason to believe that they were involved in a US
crime. Furthermore, RSA is not patented in europe, so there is no
reason to believe that using PGP isn't perfectly legal there.

>Any more comments wrapping yourself in the moral high ground,
>mathew?
>
>David

Looks like you are a crusader without a sword, Mr. Sternlight. PGP 2.0
is as legal in Europe as Microsoft Word. Nothing stolen, nothing
pirated, no patent violations, nothing. Its only a problem for
Americans. You are the one who is falsely wrapping themselves in "the
moral position".

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
"They can have my RSA key when they pry it from my cold dead fingers."
Newsgroups: alt.security