No Subject

[nobody@pmantis.berkeley.edu]

  With regard to the White House's attempt to force the "Clipper" on you:
 
I guess the time has come for the Cypherpunks to break their 'political teeth'.
This issue is squarely on point with the purpose of the cpunks and needs to be
addressed.  The best thinkers on these topics are on this list (as are many
libertarian thinkers).  The Cypherpunks have gotten a fair amount of media play
as of late and I think those interested in privacy and security are frothing at
the mouth.  I know in general cpunks dont believe in the necessity for leaders,
but leader'ship' is a different matter.  I believe that there are people here
with the knowledge to fight against this proposal.  So, Cypherpunks, step to the
political plate.
 
>  In the past, it has
>been possible to preserve a government capability to conduct
>electronic surveillance in furtherance of legitimate law
>enforcement and national security interests, while at the same time
>protecting the privacy and civil liberties of all citizens.
 
Just some levity to start off with :-)
 
>The Attorney General of the United States, or her representative,
>shall request manufacturers ...
 
I read this differently than does Tim.  "shall" coupled with "request" actually
equals ambiguity and seems not to compel anyone.  Im sure that the language was
meant to confuse though.
 
>In making this decision, I do
>not intend to prevent the private sector from developing, or the
>government from approving, other microcircuits or algorithms that
>are equally effective in assuring both privacy and a secure key-
>escrow system.
 
Well, the door does still appear to be open for private circuit development and
a better escrow system (better?).  This does lend credence to the opinion that
this may just be a very forceful suggestion and not an order per se.
 
>The Attorney General shall make all arrangements with appropriate
>entities to hold the keys for the key-escrow microcircuits
>installed in communications equipment.
 
Gotta agree with Tim that this appears to be an incredibly obvious backdoor to
all telecommunications equipment.  This should be made clear in any public
statements about this document.
 
>  The Attorney
>General shall review for legal sufficiency the procedures by which
>an agency establishes its authority to acquire the content of such
>communications.
 
OK.  This might be the key to the downfall of this proposal.  The Govt appears
to be showing its weak hand here.  They have either not thouroughly addressed
the legal concerns or they are standing on shaky legal ground.  I believe there
could be a number of problems (legally speaking) with the proposal.  Seperation
of Powers, Commerce concerns, penumbra Right to Privacy, etc just to name a few.
Well, I guess Im off to the library to research another interesting, yet
inapplicable directly to my legal studies, topic.  (As if I dont spend enough
time in the library)  I guess if she's gonna review the legal sufficiency there
should be no problem with me 'parallel processing' that same information.
 
>  Further, the Attorney General
>shall utilize funds from the Department of Justice Asset Forfeiture
>Super Surplus Fund to effect this purchase.
 
Surplus...what happened to the defecit?   :^)
 
  In general I believe that this event calls for a public expression of
intellectual disagreement.  An assertion of the power of the ideas expressed on
this list will put the Cypherpunks in the discourse of public policy.
Obviously, it should be well thought out and expressed in the most positive way.
Calm, cool, calculated response will gain the cpunks respect, a knee jerk,
emotional response will only get our ideas ignored.
 
  If politics doesn't work there also appears to be an economic out.  Creating
REAL encryptive circuits whose keys are not held by the government but rather by
the owner.  Private enterprise and a result to our concerns for liberty appear
amenable.  So any hardware cypherpunk hacks, get out your tools.
 
  Finally, a simple analogy.  The current state of the law does not require me
to register the key to my home with a government agency so that they can gain
access to my home in a more efficient way if they feel the need.  I keep the key
and the control (until they break down my door).  In that case, the value is
placed on my freedom, not the efficiency with which the police could access my
private communications.  There are reasons that search warrents were 'initially'
difficult to acquire and reasons why it should be difficult to access my home
(i.e. they must break down my door.)  Those reasons dealt with the severity of
encroachment upon my privacy and rights thereto.  In fact, that is the reason
given for the remaining formalistic requirements of the necessity of prior
judicial consent for warrents.  No, the judge does not ponder long and hard
about whether to give the warrent.  Rather, the purpose is to give the officers
pause.  The ritual is designed to make the parties involved at least ponder the
severity of their actions.  This proposal would only make invasions of our
privacy easier to achieve and eliminate obstacles in the way of officers, giving
them even less time to ponder the severity of their encroachment.
 
 
 
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
 VOLTAIRE                                      Studying the law,
                                                  Finding the flaws,
                                                      Creating a light,
                                                          Out of the night!
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Tim- Aren't we closer than 10 mins. to midnight???????