HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: olson@dstl86.gsfc.nasa.gov (Paul Olson)
Subject: Re: Registered Keys - why the need?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Mission Operations and Data Systems
Date:  5 Nov 1992 07:35 EST  

In article <Bx7EtD.21B@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes...
> 
>There would have been little difference.  Corporations are required to
>keep certain books, have them audited, etc., and have the records 
>available.  Nothing now physically prevents such a firm from having
>its bookkeeper keep the "real" books in a highly secret place, in such
>a way that it is not available to anybody without major contortions, and
>having a public set of books entirely different.  If, say, only the
>bookkeeper and the CEO are even aware of it, and they can keep secrets,
>how would the government even know about it?
> 
>It is only the law, and the insistence of officers in a firm, which
>even require that anything like honest books be kept.  Make it too
>hard to keep an accurate backup, and devices to at least have approximate
>assessments of what really happened, and to give only a false image to the
>public, will be produced.  Other than brainwashing those with information,
>or some other procedure which gets out what they do not want to tell, will
>get this information, anyhow.

I think both the example and your response are off the mark.  I believe there
is a greater concern over encrypting R&D information being communicated between
a company's R&D researchers than dumping financial data out on the net.  In
fact, the only thing that would even closely resemble financial data would be
negotiation data.  Researchers communicate via computer nets.  Marketeers via
fax machine.

> 
>-- 
>Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
>Phone: (317)494-6054
>hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
>{purdue,pur-ee}!pop.stat!hrubin(UUCP)

       __  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                    
Xref: sparky sci.crypt:4433 comp.org.eff.talk:6836 alt.privacy:2133 talk.politics.guns:23719
From: williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Registered Keys - why the need?
Date: 7 Nov 1992 15:41:54 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
Reply-To: williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums)
NNTP-Posting-Host: athena

In article <1992Nov6.172823.1015@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>
>Those who would oppose registration because it would make it easier to
>enforce laws should direct their attention to the laws, not the
>registration. Otherwise they are advocating making law violation
>easier.  The proper place to oppose "improper" laws is in the
>law-making process, and subsequently in the courts, not in the
>"registration" arena, unless registration itself is, say,
>unconstitutional.
----
	The problem with your scenario is improper laws and improper 
inforcement.  Example was George Bush's Gag Rule.  While it was
declared unconstitutional, while it was in effect, it was causing
measurable risk to those violating the law.  If we had devices in
every medical consultation room and had the technology to monitor
every conversation, alot of people would be in jail now that might
not be otherwise.  Admittedly being in jail for a few months might
only be a minor inconvenience to you as a necessity for upholding
the law, but consider the next case:
	In the 1600's in salem, they had something called a 'witch hunt'.  Again,
it was not legal and was wrong, but its victims were dead.  Under the
current regime, there is a great amount of anti-drug hysteria (reminiscent
of the 1600's witch hunts in many ways).  The penalties can include
forfeiture of your life as you now know it.  They can take away your
house, your car -- cause you to lose your job, etc. -- all without 
a criminal prosecution.  Who is to say that in the future, with
more complete monitoring, they might not assume your guilt based on
conversations you have with others, etc.  This is *ignoring* the
rightness or wrongness of drug possession/use.  They don't have to prove
that -- just claim your belongings are drug tainted.  Of course morally,
the problem is worse if you disagree with such laws.

>Those who argue against registration on grounds that it might make it
>easier for the government to enforce laws are on very shaky moral
>and ethical grounds, in my view.
---
	Suppose they had laws supporting black slavery.  Suppose they had
laws saying Jews should be rounded up and killed?  Are you telling me
that you would support and obey those laws until they are 'officially
changed'?  

	In regard to your view of others being on shaky moral and ethical
grounds -- this may be true -- anyone who takes personal responsibility
for their own actions always is.  But to advocate that the government is
the final arbitreur of right/wrong is showing a LACK of personal
morals and ethics.


>David Sternlight


-wat-
--
 --- "If women really earned fifty-nine cents to the dollar for the same
 work as men, what business could compete effectively by hiring men at
 any level?"    -- Dr. Warren Farrell
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: aaron@barracuda.micro.umn.edu (Aaron C. Sawdey)
Subject: Re: ATM security question
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis: Under Grad Workstation Lab.
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 17:50:13 GMT

For what it's worth, the ATM systems I use seem to bundle the whole 
transaction (PIN and all) and send it off when you're done telling it what
to do. It doesn't tell that you put in the wrong PIN until after you've
finished telling it what account/how much. At that point it either gives
you money, or tells you the transaction failed. It usually takes less than
5 seconds.
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan)
Subject: My Gov't is Better than Yours (was Re: Finally! We're getting somewhere.)
Organization: CIS, University of Alabama at Birmingham
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:44:39 GMT

In article <BxFF18.1oA@constant.demon.co.uk> slangley@constant.demon.co.uk (Simon Langley) writes:
>...
>the final say on our laws belongs to the elected representatives of the
>people rather than a group of unelected Supreme Court judges.  Our system
>has served us well for 350 years, how is the US system "safer"?

It didn't serve *us* too well 220 years ago...but we fixed that.

But, to answer your question:  our system is safer because the final say
on your laws belongs to the elected representatives of the people rather
than a group of unelected Supreme Court judges.

Different time-constants, and all that...




-- 
Kenneth Sloan                   Computer and Information Sciences
sloan@cis.uab.edu               University of Alabama at Birmingham
(205) 934-2213                  115A Campbell Hall, UAB Station 
(205) 934-5473 FAX              Birmingham, AL 35294-1170
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,talk.politics.guns
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: Registered Keys - why the need?
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 01:57:04 GMT

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).

On the other hand, cars are not dangerous to the state and encryption
keys are.

In the early 1970s, all rifles in New York City were registered. At
the time the law was passed, we were assured that the lists would
never be used to seize weapons.

After the assault weapon ban was passed last year in New York, the
lists were of course used in precisely that way.

Similarly, population registry systems in Holland created before the
Germans invaded were used in World War II to track down Jews to find
them and take them to extermination camps.

It is not unreasonable to believe that government registration lists
of private keys might not be used to determine who is and who is not
using encryption systems and to selectively monitor one of those
groups, especially in the case where cryptography was later banned
entirely. Government, in spite of its protests to the contrary, has a
very poor record when it comes to collecting information that could be
abused. We find that the later abuse of such information has not
merely occured but has occured quite commonly.

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
"They can have my RSA key when they pry it from my cold dead fingers."
Libertarian Party info: Phone 1-800-682-1776, E-Mail 345-5647@mcimail.com
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,talk.politics.guns
From: colinj@engin.umich.edu (Colin Johnson)
Subject: Re: Registered Keys - why the need?
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 92 10:00:36 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Distribution: inet

>In article <palmer.721081324@news.larc.nasa.gov> palmer@icat.larc.nasa.gov (Michael T. Palmer) writes:
>}By the way, a MAJOR HUGE difference between automobiles and guns/crypt
>}is that driving a car on the highways of a state is a privilege, whereas
>}bearing arms in defense of self/family/country and communicating with

	Or much more likely defense of self/family *AGAINST* the country/
government.

	Colin J.


-- 
Colin Johnson           |Colin.Johnson@um.cc.umich.edu
Ann Arbor Michigan      |colinj@caen.engin.umich.edu


Xref: sparky sci.crypt:4375 comp.org.eff.talk:6795 alt.privacy:2104 talk.politics.guns:23573
From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Registered Keys - why the need?
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:43:47 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)


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).

-- 
David Sternlight
(pgp 2.0 and ripem public keys available on request)
From: lauren@vortex.COM (Lauren Weinstein)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: ATM security question
Date: 8 Nov 92 01:21:39 GMT
Organization: Vortex Technology

Greetings.  On-card encrypted PINs have been used for some purposes.
They have become increasingly uncommon in recent years, with a
definite move toward centralized verification.  

At a major California bank, for example, their original ATM system
would instantly ack a card as soon as you finished entering the PIN.
At that time, they were using encrypted PINs on the card.  A point
came when they issued all new cards, and required that everyone come
in once to set the PIN.  This involved running the card through a
reader for ID and then letting a modem at the bank dial up the
central system to set the PIN in the system.  It was at the same time
that PIN acks started taking a considerable period of time (usually
several seconds--though you're told to go ahead and start entering
your first transaction instead of waiting for the ack--but you'll be
bounced later if the PIN is incorrect).  Also, the ATMs no longer
worked at all when the central system was down (previously simple
withdrawals had gone ahead anyway).

In any case, it seemed likely that the bank had switched to a centralized
verification system, and I later confirmed this with the bank while in 
the process of clearing up some card problems.

--Lauren--
Xref: sparky sci.crypt:4380 comp.org.eff.talk:6799 alt.privacy:2106 talk.politics.guns:23584
From: unruh@physics.ubc.ca (William Unruh)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Registering "Assault Keys"
Date: 5 Nov 1992 23:32:33 GMT
Organization: The University of British Columbia
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.ubc.ca

starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:

>Not really.  Consent and coercion are opposites; if Switzerland has a high
>degree of consent compared to other countries, then it has a low level of
>coercion by the same standard.

Not necessarily, a government can have a high degree of consent by a
large majority, and still be increadibly coercive to a minority.
From: kubo@boucher.harvard.edu (Tal Kubo)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Registered Keys - why the need?
Date: 7 Nov 92 01:01:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Nov6.200119.17185
Organization: Dept. of Math, Harvard Univ.

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).
>

If democratic governments demanded duplicates of your ignition keys,
you might be more concerned.  That is the automotive analogue of
cryto-key registration.


-tal kubo@math.harvard.edu
Xref: sparky sci.crypt:4565 comp.org.eff.talk:6914 alt.privacy:2178 talk.politics.guns:23911
From: Marc VanHeyningen <mvanheyn@whale.cs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: the Right of Privacy (was Re: A Trial Balloon to Ban Encryption?)
X-Quoted: 56%
Organization: Computer Science Dept, Indiana University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 07:54:40 -0500

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.

Use of a megaphone in a public park forces others to listen who may not
wish to.  Use of the public airwaves is a special case because it is a
scarce resource.  Use of your voice to shout "Fire!" in a theater
directly endangers others.

Exactly which of these legal justifications do you believe applies to
email, and why?
-- 
Marc VanHeyningen    mvanheyn@whale.cs.indiana.edu    MIME & RIPEM accepted


Patriotism is, in fact, the *first* refuge of the scoundrel.
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)
Subject: Re: Registering keys
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 20:27:45 GMT

garfield (garfield@utopia.hacktic.nl) wrote:
: 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...
: 

Not if they charge, say, $15 per key registered.

Seriously, arguments about flooding the key registration system with
10 keys, or 10^10 keys, fail to take into account the likely fees,
paperwork, filing requirements, etc.

And the real effect is, as I have written about it elsewhere, to limit
the use of crypto in general, not to cover all situations. A chilling
effect, indeed.

-- 
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^756839 | PGP Public Key: awaiting Macintosh version.

Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: karn@servo.qualcomm.com (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: Simple hardware RNG
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1992 22:52:24 GMT

On a visit to the Exploratorium in San Francisco last week (the
occasion was an excellent Interop hospitality "suite" sponsored by
TGV, by the way) I got an inspiration for yet another hardware random
number generator.

One of the exhibits was a "chaotic pendulum" consisting of several
interconnected pendulums. (penduli?) Spin it and the whole ensemble
twists and contorts in all sorts of bizarre ways. Although a simple
pendulum is highly predictable, a coupled set of pendulums is very
different.  It's a good demonstration of chaos theory, in that very
small variations in initial starting conditions yield very different
outcomes over time. Just the ticket for a good hardware random number
generator.

Just attach an optical shaft encoder (the more bits the better) to the
main pivot. Spin it and sample the encoder after several seconds.
Repeat several times, concatenate the encoder values, and hash with
MD-5. The result should be a pretty good random number, suitable for
use as a crypto key. Of course, you'll want to keep the blinds drawn
so the FBI can't videotape your key generator in action...

Phil
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: <None>
From: makamn@cstp.umkc.edu
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 20:43:49 GMT
Organization: UM - Kansas City, Computer Science

:
Xref: sparky sci.crypt:4414 comp.org.eff.talk:6818 alt.privacy:2121 talk.politics.guns:23647
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Registered Keys - why the need?
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:36:12 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
NNTP-Posting-Host: vallyforge.ce.utk.edu

In article <1992Nov5.214347.27535@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:

>Xref: utkcs2 sci.crypt:9504 comp.org.eff.talk:11547 alt.privacy:4777 talk.politics.guns:45643
>
>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).

       A couple of points:  As far as guns go, registration *has* 
consistently led to confiscation.  There are numerous non-US and US 
examples, not the least of which being New York where it actually happened
and Washington DC where it was threatened.

       The major difference between guns and cars are that licensing and 
registration have not been suggested as a way to reduce the numbers of cars 
in private hands.  This has been said a number of times for guns.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
                         Information Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Registering "Assault Keys"
Date: 12 Nov 92 15:49:49 GMT
Organization: Totally Unorganized

In article <1dpedeINNc8u@transfer.stratus.com> dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber) writes:
>In article <1dp5mpINNfat@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca>, unruh@physics.ubc.ca (William Unruh) writes:
>> 
>> 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.

Why do you feel guns are oh-so-responsibly handled in the hands of the
elite (read: wealthy/famous via hired guns, police, and military) yet
those same people (bodyguards, etc) are suddenly irresponsible when they
aren't guarding the VIP?  Seems to me the track record of the above
is not much better than the law-abiding citizen.  Are we seeing a bit
of an elitist attitude here?  "I'm OK, but you common rabble are not OK?"

>Strike three - we have no problem with your desire to waive your rights.
>What we do object to is your desire to waive ours.

It does seem that so many of these folks (often folks who are very quick
to point out human rights violations of others) are also very quick to
offer up OTHER peoples' rights for sacrifice to support their agenda.
But suggest that THEY give up a right, then listen to them howl!!!!

Or am I just imagining this.... ?

Like gasoline - it isn't a fashionable villan, controls would impact
even those that would propose heavy controls:  Note the lack of outcry
when all those people were murdered by a rampaging fire bomber at that
Happyland club in NYC.  Had a gun been used instead, we would STILL be
hearing about it in the media ...  yet the kill rate exceeded any of
the 'gun rampages' I am familiar with...  Double Standard here?

-- 
pat@rwing.uucp                                  (Pat Myrto),  Seattle, WA
                      If all else fails, try:
         ...!uunet!{pilchuck, polari}!rwing!pat
WISDOM:    "Travelling unarmed is like boating without a life jacket" 
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: gardner@convex.com (Steve Gardner)
Subject: Re: Mr. Leichter and the Law
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 02:43:56 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 <1992Oct29.162712.1@zodiac.rutgers.edu> leichter@zodiac.rutgers.edu writes:
>Fine.  Let's apply the same precedent to cryptography:  If you refuse to
>reveal your key, the government may make any reasonable claim about what
>the cleartext is.  It is then your obligation to prove that the cleartext
>is something different.  Would that make you happy?
	Okay. I'll use an XOR with a one time pad.  When the government
	guys ask me for the key I will then produce a key that makes the 
	encrypted text decrypt to: "Hi Mom.  Loved your apple pie.
	How's uncle Jim.  Love, Stevie.".
	
	By the way, you sound like you approve of the government minding
	everyone's business.  I hate to find fault but gosh that 
	attitude offends me.  I think it would have offended those who
	wrote our (US) constitution too.  They, unlike you, didn't trust
	government to not become corrupt and therefore fall into the
	hands of a few. Our founding fathers knew that the few would use 
	the powers of government to arrogate the resources of the
	many to serve the few.  


						smg