HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (Bill Stewart +1-908-949-0705)
Subject: Re: A One-Time Way to Thwart Key Registration...
Organization: A Saucerful of Secrets
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 00:38:19 GMT
Keywords: Registration, Combining One-Time-Pads with conventional encryption.
	<1992Nov4.092224.6263@src.umd.edu>

One-time pads are much harder to ban than other encryption techniques,
simply because any easily duplicated source of digital bits can be used.
They can't ban the use of CD players, so they can't stop it.

By themselves, book cyphers are not particularly secure, because they can be
subjected to lots of pattern-matching, but even if you've registered your keys
and your Pink Floyd CDs, *they've* got to check all the combinations, 
while you and your friend know to play the disk backwards from the end of
"A Saucerful of Secrets" and feed it through DES to get the one-time pad.

-----
If this were sci.crypt.humor, I'd probably say something about Tipper Gore ...
Meanwhile, if you've got to register your musical one-time-pads anyway,
might as well give them the old scratchy vinyl records instead of the new CDs :-)

--
#				Pray for peace;      Bill
# Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 wcs@anchor.att.com AT&T Bell Labs 4M312 Holmdel NJ
#
# Congratulations!  You've found the secret message!
Xref: sparky sci.crypt:4576 alt.politics.usa.constitution:981
From: mcclary@netcom.com (Michael McClary)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: the Right of Privacy (was Re: A Trial Balloon to Ban Encryption?)
Date: 11 Nov 92 00:28:13 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

(Those new to netnews should note that I'm quoting a quote, citing both
the author and the person who quoted him.)

In article <1992Nov6.023417.26235@news.eng.convex.com> gardner@convex.com
(Steve Gardner) writes:
>In article <1992Oct30.165406.5853@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com
>(David Sternlight) writes:

>>[] the Supreme
>>Court decision that the right to free speech does not extend to
>>falsely crying "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

As I understand it, the right to free speech/press means:

 - The government can't stop you in advance from making such utterances
   (as by cutting out your tongue or confiscating your newspaper).

 - The government is unhampered in punishing you afterward, if, for
   example, your statements result in harm or the risk of harm to others.

 - The government can pass laws to define in advance what sort of
   behavior will be punished.

The "fire in a crowded theater" scenario is repeatedly and continually
raised by the enemies of free speech.  This is the first time I have
EVER seen a claim that the Supreme Court decided that no right to make
such an utterance exists.  Can you give us a citation?

-- 
=	=	=	=	=	=	=	=	=	=
Michael McClary						mcclary@netcom.com
For faster response, address electronic mail to:	michael@node.com
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: morton@helios.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Cindy Morton)
Subject: Re: Authentication protocols in GSM
Organization: Queen's University, Kingston
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 16:16:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.144426.1@cstp.umkc.edu>, makamn@cstp.umkc.edu writes:
|> Hi:
|> 
|> I would like to get more information on the PROTOCOLS and SYSTEM 
|> ARCHITECTURE used for the AUTHENTICATION procedure in present day
|> CELLULAR systems and GSM .
|> 
|> My EMAIL address is:MAKAMN@CSTP.UMKC.EDU

I am also interested in this information.  Could you post it to
the newsgroup or e-mail me at MORTON@ELECENG.EE.QUEENSU.CA
Xref: sparky sci.crypt:4402 comp.org.eff.talk:6815 alt.privacy:2118 talk.politics.guns:23628
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: 6 Nov 92 00:10:01 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: icat.larc.nasa.gov

strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:


>Karl Denninger asserts that registration is a prelude to confiscation.

>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).

The only difference is that people use cars to kill tens of thousands every
year.  Guns and cryptography are much less effective, so of course they must
be strictly controlled.

Wait... did I forget to raise my hand as a sarcasm alert?

Cars do, in fact, help maintain our freedom by giving us mobility other
than on state-run transportation systems.  But they are easy to spot, easy
to track, and hard to hide in your coat or on a floppy disk.

-- 
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
From: ptrei@bistromath.mitre.org (Peter Trei)
Subject: Re: Registering keys
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 16:19:44 GMT

In article <Nmq4TB1w165w@utopia.hacktic.nl> garfield@utopia.hacktic.nl (garfield) writes:
>Why all the fuss about registering keys?? If they want them.. give them 
>what they want.. If everyone registeres 10 or 15 keys and each key is 10K 
>in size.... Then they have a slight problem of storage...

>garfield@utopia.hacktic.nl

     A problem, but not an unsurmountable one.

     15 keys, 10^4 length = 1.5E5 bytes/person (I'm being generous - I could
     have assumed you meant bits).

     World pop = ~ 5E9

     implies 7.5E14 bytes storage required.

     The largest online storage device I've heard of is a 12 Terabyte
     (1.2E13) device, which is currently being researched by NASA. 

     The appropriate government agencies would have no trouble purchasing
     the 63 machines needed. For the US population, you'd only need 3
     or 4.

     Wait a decade, and you'll have that much at home. 

							Peter Trei
							ptrei@Mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: gardner@convex.com (Steve Gardner)
Subject: Re: Limits on the Use of Cryptography?
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 22:16:16 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 <1992Nov12.121422.49@nsrvan.vanc.wa.us> sysevm@nsrvan.vanc.wa.us writes:
>What would you do to a monster who takes YOUR son/daughter and rapes
>them and beats them and kills them over 3 days. Would you go a buy a gun and
>wait for them to be released 120 days into their cypher charge then BLOW them
>away?
	Is there a point here?   I'm lost.  Are you for or against the
	government forcing the registration of PKC keys?


>Sorry for rambling, This stupid argument just struck too close to home.
>But really, next time you read about some heinous act see your kids as the
>victim then let me know if registering keys is at all important compaired to
>early detection and real jail time for the monsters.
	"Struck too close to home".  Isn't that just another way of saying:
	"I am too emotionally involved here to give a rational answer.
	Disregard what I am about to say." ?



							smg
From: drake@Autodesk.COM (Dan Drake)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: Registered Keys - why the need?
Date: 13 Nov 92 21:41:48 GMT
Distribution: inet
Organization: Autodesk Inc., Sausalito CA, USA

gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
> In article <17888@autodesk.COM> drake@Autodesk.COM (Dan Drake) writes:
> >
> >Query: Can anyone tell me what the word ``well-regulated'' means when
> >used in the 2nd Amendment?
> 
> It's an archaic firearms term meaning "adjusted to strike to point of
> aim." A double barrel shotgun is said to be well regulated when both
> barrels fire to the same point of aim. When applied to the militia,
> it means that the militia is practiced in the effective use of weapons.

This is one of several responses to my query, most of which came by
e-mail.  My thanks to all the people who troubled to respond.

I admit with embarassment that only after getting these replies (many of
which were along the same lines as this one) did I consult a scholarly
source, one absolutely unbiased relative to American gun laws.  I invite
anyone to do the same: look into the Oxford English Dictionary and form
your own conclusions about the historical meanings of regulate and
regulated; use the full multi-volume set, with the historical examples.
For myself, I don't find a strong balance of probability that the word
as applied to a militia just means able to aim a gun accurately.

By the way, the last definition given for "regulated" refers
specifically to armed forces; it essentially means "disciplined".  Not a
good omen for well-regulated militia meaning any bunch of guys that have
guns.  In all fairness, I must note that this definition is marked
obsolete and rare, with an example from the late 1600s, so it can be
dismissed as irrelevant if one wishes to.  That leaves plenty of other
material, on which you can draw your own conclusions.

--
Dan Drake                 In software, the *complete* design *is* the software!
drake@Autodesk.com        --Hugh Lamaster
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,talk.politics.guns
From: jkapson@ad-29.Naitc.Com (John Kapson)
Subject: Re: Registering "Assault Keys"
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: AC Nielsen Co., Bannockburn IL
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 20:56:20 GMT


----------------------------------------
NOTE: FOLLOWUP SET TO TALK.POLITICS.GUNS
----------------------------------------

In article <1dp5mpINNfat@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> unruh@physics.ubc.ca (William Unruh) writes:
>
>Yes and controlling peoples ability to commit violent acts is part of
>the solution- not all of it, part of it.
>Many of the guns used in crimes are stolen- stolen from all those law
>abiding citizens who never use them. And if there are more available to
>steal they are easier to steal.

Here in Chicago about six weeks ago, a Cook County Sheriff's Deputy was
charged with selling weapons illegally to gang members.
"Who will watch the guardians?"

>> If you simply don't like handguns, fine.  Don't own one.  
>
>I don't know about the original poster but I don't like them in your, or
>other peoples hands. Like you I feel that I am infinitely responsible
>and would never never misuse any gun I owned Unfortunately I do not
>have the same confidence in you, or others , and am willing to give up
>my utterly responsile freedom in order to help protect me from other's
>irresponsibility.

I don't have confidence in _your_ ability to drive a car without
endangering my life.  Please call the DMV right now and have your
license revoked.  Similarly, I don't think you can be trusted with
knives.  Please dispose of all your kitchen equipment.  Etc., etc.,
ad nauseum.

>> 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.  
>> 
> Uh, hardly. divide the number of deaths by the number of times they
>are used, not by the number. There are "billions" of molecules of cyanide
>in the universe. That does not make them any the less dangerous when
>used.	

Fine.  I have used my guns well over 100,000 times, but I have yet
to kill _anyone_ with them.  Maybe I'm doing something wrong?

John Kapson   NRA ILA
From: cme@ellisun.sw.stratus.com (Carl Ellison)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: A Copper Balloon
Date: 10 Nov 92 15:27:49 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering
NNTP-Posting-Host: ellisun.sw.stratus.com

In article <1992Nov9.213013.20970@csi.uottawa.ca> cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes (re: my elaboration of DD's proposal):
>- People may trust it too much.  It DOES have a big weakness in that
>government CAN break it.

Yes, the gov't can break it -- but is much less likely to abuse it if it
knows that a log of all taps is being recieved by the ACLU and the NYTimes
and the heads of both major political parties prior to any session key
being released (as part of the protocol for session key release).


I have nothing against proper police work (although I reserve my opinion of
wiretapping in general) -- but I have strong opposition to Nixon-admin
abuses (or even Bush-admin officials pulling records of Bill Clinton, his
mother and Ross Perot).  All I was trying to do was use cryptography as a
tool to improve our civil liberties by clamping down on the ability to tap
currently clear channels.

-- 
-- <<Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are my own, of course.>>
-- Carl Ellison						cme@sw.stratus.com
-- Stratus Computer Inc.	M3-2-BKW		TEL: (508)460-2783
-- 55 Fairbanks Boulevard ; Marlborough MA 01752-1298	FAX: (508)624-7488
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,talk.politics.guns
From: ctdonath@dodo.syr.EDU (Carl T. Donath)
Subject: Re: PGP Users?
In-reply-to: ntprlr@eskimo.celestial.com's message of Sun, 8 Nov 1992 03:05:53 GMT
Organization: Syracuse University
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 92 13:36:27 EST

FTP a copy of PGP 2.0 from princeton.edu in directory /pub/pgp20, file
PGP20.ZIP (or some name like that). Unzip it and read the two manuals
in it. The author goes into pretty good details of platforms & security.
--
  _____/ ctdonath@rodan.acs.syr.edu   Carl T Donath \_____
 / The second amendment is the only right that guarantees \
 \        the preservation of all other rights.           /
From: karn@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Phil Karn)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: A Copper Balloon
Date: 10 Nov 92 22:57:20 GMT
Reply-To: karn@chicago.qualcomm.com
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc

In article <1992Nov10.090133.1707@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu>, denning@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu writes:
|> Whatever regulation, if any, might be considered, it would seem that
|> it would have to be aimed mostly at crypto products, not use.

Many (if not most) crypto "products" now consist entirely of software,
and software is very easily modified and copied.  Complete source for
a few of these "products" is freely available, which makes
modification trivial.  But even object code can be disassembled,
modified and recompiled by someone with enough motivation.  This only
need be done once; once the results are distributed, *everyone* can
run it, regardless of programming skill.

And, of course, any competent programmer with a PC can write his own
package from scratch.  The reference materials are readily available;
your excellent textbook, for example.

Given this, just how would you distinguish between the "makers of
crypto products" and the "users of crypto products"? You can add this
to your long list of unanswered questions (such as exactly how you
would enforce a ban on secure encryption between private parties in
the first place).

Phil
Xref: sparky sci.crypt:4662 comp.org.eff.talk:6965 alt.privacy:2211 talk.politics.guns:24037
From: drake@Autodesk.COM (Dan Drake)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Registered Keys - why the need?
Date: 9 Nov 92 18:55:54 GMT
Followup-To: sci.crypt
Distribution: inet
Organization: Autodesk Inc., Sausalito CA, USA

spm2d@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Steven Miale) writes:
> ...
> 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. 

Query: Can anyone tell me what the word ``well-regulated'' means when
used in the 2nd Amendment?


--
Dan Drake                 In software, the *complete* design *is* the software!
drake@Autodesk.com        --Hugh Lamaster
From: cj164@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jeff Ryan Glover)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: PGP, RSA
Date: 11 Nov 1992 22:45:16 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
Reply-To: cj164@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jeff Ryan Glover)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


I'm interested in cryptography, but know almost nothing about what sort of
algorithms being used now.  I have heard of such things as Public Keys, PGP,
and RSA, but know nothing of how they work.

Can anyone give a brief explanation of what a Public Key is? What are PGP and
RSA?  Any info I could get at the library?

Thanks

 

-- 
----------------------
Jeff Glover
cj164@cleveland.freenet.edu
eaeu188@orion.oac.uci.edu
Xref: sparky sci.crypt:4747 alt.privacy:2246
From: sysevm@nsrvan.vanc.wa.us
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.privacy,talk.politics.gun
Subject: Re: Limits on the Use of Cryptography?
Date: 13 Nov 92 17:15:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: nsrvan.1992Nov13.091553.51
Organization: National Systems & Research, Vancouver WA

In article <1992Nov12.221616.18578@news.eng.convex.com>, gardner@convex.com (Steve Gardner) writes:
> In article <1992Nov12.121422.49@nsrvan.vanc.wa.us> sysevm@nsrvan.vanc.wa.us writes:
>>What would you do to a monster who takes YOUR son/daughter and rapes
>>them and beats them and kills them over 3 days. Would you go a buy a gun and
>>wait for them to be released 120 days into their cypher charge then BLOW them
>>away?
> 	Is there a point here?   I'm lost.  Are you for or against the
> 	government forcing the registration of PKC keys?
> 

	The point is that existing laws do not keep the dangerous off the
street for any length of time and therefore your argument for the registration
of PKC keys is moot. You are lost because you are thinking in a detached from
the problem mode. Some kind of an intelectual game not the deeply insightfull
modde of thought that is required for this issue. (see my next followup for
more details)

> 
>>Sorry for rambling, This stupid argument just struck too close to home.
>>But really, next time you read about some heinous act see your kids as the
>>victim then let me know if registering keys is at all important compaired to
>>early detection and real jail time for the monsters.
> 	"Struck too close to home".  Isn't that just another way of saying:
> 	"I am too emotionally involved here to give a rational answer.
> 	Disregard what I am about to say." ?
> 
> 							smg

	No, it does not mean that. It means to look at the real arguments. It
means that you would have a differient viewpoint if you were looking at this as
a father instead of as an intellectual game.
From: cme@ellisun.sw.stratus.com (Carl Ellison)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: Disclosing a new encryption method (the other side)
Date: 11 Nov 92 23:15:08 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering
NNTP-Posting-Host: ellisun.sw.stratus.com

In article <1992Nov11.182902.29740@ee.eng.ohio-state.edu> butzerd@columbia.eng.ohio-state.edu (Dane C. Butzer) writes:
>
>-To make $$$$ off of it, I should get it patented, but
>
>-To convice myself to spend the $5,000 or $10,000 to get a GOOD lawyer to
> patent it, I want to run the challenge, but
>
>-To run the challenge, people want me to publish the encryption method


The answer is simple:

1.	learn cryptanalysis and practice it, by breaking a couple of systems
	similar to the one you're proposing (but obviously simpler :-)
	as well as ones which have been broken in the past (eg., Enigma,
	Hebern, pencil-and-paper methods, ...).

2.	if you still believe it's a good system, enlist the help of
	someone even more talented than yourself.  Get a non-disclosure
	agreement signed by that person (preserving your patent rights)
	and possibly pay the consultant.  Get the consultant's expert
	advice.

3.	file the patent, both in the US and abroad, simultaneously.  (Don't
	just file in the US first and refer in the foreign patents to the
	US application -- file full disclosures overseas -- possibly even
	a week or two before filing in the US -- to prevent a secrecy order
	being placed on the patent application).

4.	publish the idea.

-- 
-- <<Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are my own, of course.>>
-- Carl Ellison						cme@sw.stratus.com
-- Stratus Computer Inc.	M3-2-BKW		TEL: (508)460-2783
-- 55 Fairbanks Boulevard ; Marlborough MA 01752-1298	FAX: (508)624-7488
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: books@fsunuc.physics.fsu.edu (Roger Books)
Subject: Re: Registered Keys - why the need?
Organization: FSU nuclear physics
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 14:42:47 GMT

In article <1992Nov2.084229.1@zodiac.rutgers.edu> leichter@zodiac.rutgers.
edu writes:
>Imagine that Richard Nixon, in making his tapes, had access to a DAT 
>recorder with an encryption chip.  Congress subpeonas the tapes; he 
>delivers tapes that sound like white noise.  What are the keys, Mr. Nixon?  
>No, I won't tell you that, Fifth Amendment.
>
>Or imagine that Ollie North's famous deleted mail messages had been 
>encrypted.  Or, to take a recent example, that Caspar Weinberger had used a 
>palmtop to keep his personal diary, and all entries in it were encrypted.

>All these examples are from the political domain, because it's those cases
>that get wide publicity, so all of you know about them.  But there is 
>nothing unique about the political domain.  How far would investigation of 
>the S&L's gone if they had encrypted their records, and had a right to 
>refuse to reveal the keys?

The S&L thing has already been talked to death but as for the others,
Am I the only one to notice that the government tends to exempt itself from
these type laws anyway?  Do you think any proposed law is going to stop
the Commander-in-Chief and the military (Ollie North) from encrypting 
without fear of leaks?

Roger
books@fsunuc.physics.fsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Subject: Re: Registered Keys - why the need?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:15:42 GMT


Arthur L. Rubin states that Ron Rivest can ask for keys as a licensing
requirement for his patented systems.

I think not. This would be found to be an unreasonable licensing
requirement, I'm sure, by the courts. Since Rivest has no physical
control over the use of his patents (since the techniques have been
published world-wide), he cannot enforce such a provision if it's
found unreasonable.

To see just how unreasonable, just imagine the manufacturer of a
patented safe requiring users to register their combinations.

-- 
David Sternlight
(pgp 2.0 and ripem public keys available on request)

Newsgroups: sci.crypt