musings from a madman

[ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu]

Hellman's Hints
---------------

[Hellman]
>When a message is to be sent it will first be 
>encrypted under K, then K will be encrypted under the unit key UK, 
>and the serial number of the unit added to produce a three part 
>message which will then be encrypted under the system key SK 
>producing
>
>     E{ E[M; K], E[K; UK], serial number;  SK}
>
>When a court order obtains K1 and K2, and thence K

Just a quibble, Mr. Hellman says earlier that K1 and K2 lead to unit
key UK, not family code K. And given the above, how do they ever
decrypt the message if they don't have K, unless the scheme is insecure
under the `family code'? (>barf<, leave it for the Ministry of Truth to
come up with some user-friendly term for something inherently
nauseating like `friendly fire', I wonder if Dingaling is behind this one too...)

Do you get it?
--------------

This little formula is not obvious to me. It seems to me two basic
questions have to be answered, could someone spell these out given what's known?

1. How the phones interact prior/during a call
2. How the sinister TLAs wiretap
3. How casual eavesdropping by other than billion-dollary agencies is
prevented (if at all)

The Flimsy Code
---------------

The family code is clearly a propaganda wrench in the works. `They' now
have some pretty powerful ammunition--it must be secure if you get to
change your code whenever you want, right? It's so simple anyone can
use it! I'm a bit surprised it wasn't mentioned in the announcement. I
guess all the hoopla and slick and vapid AT&T ads about `wow, you get
to *choose* your combination!' will come a bit later, it'll fit in
quite nicely with their `I' plan, as in Illegal... (I hope Sprint and
MCI sue the pants off AT&T and the government for this outrageous
collusion, unless of course they are in the collusion too...)

Conspiracy Theories
-------------------

how is it that CPSR and EFF came out with responses to the initial
announcement virtually instantaneously after its release? Are they just
really swift? I want to know what >every< single person on those
mailing lists has to say about how their name got there and how long
they knew about this abomination (and before they have a chance to
agree on stories!). I don't appreciate Mr. Banisar's little slash
suggesting that the issue is already closed and that anyone who thinks
something just a tad unusual is going on is a deranged conspiracy
monger... I think its kind of cute how he says that `nothing
significant' appeared in the traffic...

Who Has the Keys?
-----------------

The evasion of `who stores the keys' makes me wonder. It suggests that
the proposal was poorly crafted (which is true in any case), but, more
likely, IMHO, the scheme is weak enough for the NSA (but maybe not
cops) to break regardless, and hence their casual disregard for this
seemingly monumentally crucial point.  Also, they can make it sound
like they are `compromising' by giving the appearance of public debate
on the agencies, because it won't really matter, while diverting
attention from the *real* issues (look here! see your rights? now you
see 'em, now you don't... pick a key, any key---was it this one? >wow<
how'd you *do* that?).

What IS Acceptable
------------------

We should be prepared to say what >is< acceptable for the government to
do; don't get caught off guard with a question like ``well, what are
you people proposing as an alternative?'' Here are a few ideas...

1) Get the hell out of the cryptography and hardware development
business, and leave private industry alone to do what it does best when
not harrassed by extortionists and terrorists who shall remain nameless
but have the initials N.S.A. ...

2) Let the NIST pick a phone encryption scheme after totally open
debates and total noninvolvement by the NSA, who is obviously biased.
We can note that this has been attempted to be followed for other
encryption schemes (e.g. digital signature, DES, etc.) why not here?
what's so special?

3) Let communications companies loose on it, stay out of the way or get
trampled by the stampede, and we'll all be happy.

Ministry of Truth (1993-?)
--------------------------

Finally, drive home the point: the government may have always had the
`precedent' (don't ever use `right' here) to *listen*, there has never
been any assurance that they must *understand* what is being said, and
we are assured by our Noble Constitution that we can say what we
please, and if by exercising this fundamental and inalienable right we
upset the fragile status quo, then so be it, because the monument of
freedom of speech will always overshadow the weak and tenuous
`precedent to listen'. Cryptography simply alters their *understanding*
of what is on a line from the meaningful to the meaningless, and only
the Ministry of Truth is allowed to regulate *meaning* (hm, maybe that
will be the next government agency created under the New Regime...)

Mea Culpa
---------

sorry for the rough editing on the last message, that's what happens in
the heat of the moment from one of those impatient and extremely
agitated cypherpunks... For those of you keeping score at home, the
``Notice how the proposal talks about'' non sequitur should read
``Notice how the proposal talks about criminals and terrorists without
any qualifications such as `alleged' and `suspected' ''. as my penance
you have this little beauty in front of you...

How Does Cypherpunk Sound?
--------------------------

`cypherpunk' actually has some pretty endearing qualities as a name,
and I'd be a bit horrified to give it up, just when I was waiting for
the T shirt ``Cypherpunks do it stealthily'' (secretly? sneakily?). The
public seems to have a bit of fascination for `cyberpunk' right now and
we are just riding on it (stealthily? secretly? sneakily?).  OK, so we
don't publicize that term, but it could actually increase the glamor
and mystery of the cause; we shouldn't pretend that we're not seriously
pissed off...

Quote Corner
------------

``the TURNCOATS ARE COMING!''

``REMEMBER THE LIBERTY!''

``They're HEEEERE...''

``Keys? I thought YOU had the keys! Do you have a crypt hanger? We
better call the cryptsmith...''