One man's view on Clipper...

[Michael Wilson <0005514706@mcimail.com>]

Cypherpunks...  just thought I would contribute my two cents on the recent 
developments, by showing you a response I wrote to a friend on the issue 
recently.  I've been building anti-Clipper sentiment in some 'old school' 
businessmen friends of mine, since my belief is in free markets and money 
trails...

===
>Many thanks for the messages -- Clipper is still bothering a bunch of
>people including me, and I hope the cyberworld will do something organized
>about it.  If I were more competant in computers than I am I would be
>willing to lead the charge.

The politics of Clipper are insidious.  If it actually gets passed off as the 
standard, it will show up in pretty much any standard product that will hook 
into the grid.  Most people, since there is already encryption built into the 
products they use, won't advocate the use of anything else, and more 
importantly, won't PAY for anything additional.  I can tell you from experience,
people won't buy security products, there is no security market; security is 
something that people expect to get built in to a system.  The only reason that 
there is any market to speak of at all is a symptom of just how bad the current 
security situation is--essentially, most systems, including critical ones, are 
wide open, and you can certainly say that secure communications make up less 
than 1% of the total amount of traffic on the grid.

So what happens when Clipper gets in?  People once again abdicate responsibility
for handling their own security and secure communications.  Why pay more (money,
time, effort) when it is already taken care of?  The market for competing 
products dries up; interest dies.  If there is no money, how can you expect to 
pursue a product or create a market?  There is no perceived need to address.  
And so Big Brother wins; they once again become the only experts in the field, 
since they are the only ones with the money to continue playing the game.  
Direct outlawing of the technology would only make martyrs of the people trying 
to present it.  Instead, the government is striking in a much more intelligent 
and, from my viewpoint, dangerous strategy.  Their [govt] encryption scheme is 
good enough...  Yes, there are holes, but only to 'hackers'...  People who want 
to have secrets must have something to hide...  Only criminals will need to 
protect themselves, and have additional security and cryptography....  The folks
at NSA have struck a blow from a very advanced PsyOps perspective, rather than a
cryptographic one.  They destroy the marketplace, and also attack any popular 
support that could be put to good use by the opposition [cypherpunks].  Does 
this outlaw other cryptographic methods?  Not at all; there is the fiction of 
choice still available (the old game of "let them hold free elections as long as
we get to choose the candidates").  Cypherpunks and others who are concerned 
will be the 'lunatic fringe.'  And their more secure traffic will stand out like
a sore thumb; somebody somewhere will be making lists.

So at this stage, I am increasingly convinced that the solution, actually the 
groundrules of the game, are not technical at all, but belong solidly in the 
realm of political warfare.  It just so happens that I know more than a little 
about that game.
===

The rest of the communication is confidential, but I thought you folks would 
appreciate some additional thoughts.

Michael Wilson
Managing Director, The Nemesis Group
An old hand at political warfare...