Re: Real issue of crypto controls: security or taxation loss?

[Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>]

At 09:34 PM 9/14/97 -0500, jf_avon@citenet.net wrote:
>On 13 Sep 97 at 12:16, Black Unicorn wrote:
>
>
>> >To this, all I can find of enough magnitude to put them in such state 
>> >is that they just recently *truly* realized that crypto will, 
>> >infinitely more than to threaten the security of the state,
>> >threaten their very existence by putting them outside of the money 
>> >loop.
>
>> Strongly disagree.
>
>> In fact, the forces driving the current legislation, FBI, DoD, are more
>> concerned not with being unable to decrypt in realtime than they are about
>> being unable to distinquish, en masse, the bad actors encrypted
>> communications with the paranoid but harmless crypto user.  If crypto gets
>> widespread enough there is no way to filter one from the other any longer.
>
>Your last sentence means that they can read crypted text.  They even 
>hinted at it recently.  But then, why the proposed law?

How does this follow?  It's purely a traffic analysis problem.  Has nothing
to do with cryptanalysis.

>Do they indulge in statistical efficiency or do they want 99.9999+% 
>efficiency at their "filtering"?  I'd say if they "filter" only, say, 
>90% of all communications and an Oklahoma City plan passes by in the 
>10% remaining, it won't be good enough for them.  So, why the law if 
>they already can decrypt?  Can you reasonnably expect the vilains 
>to use the most easy-to-crack and/or GAKed schemes? 

I dont understand how this follows either.

>> The "private currency and taxation loss" is not even on the radar screens.
>> Oliver Ireland, of the fed, thinks its just silly to think that way.  Also
>> see Kendall Houghton, (Committee on State Taxation) remarks on the subject.
>> The powers that be just roll their eyes at the "no more taxes"
>> crypto-radical crowd.
>
>If you were in their shoes, what would you say to the public?  Ever 
>heard about the game called Poker?  Did Santa told you they would 
>never lie to you?

Don't be silly.  The crypto-radical bunch is not taken very seriously.  I'm
not saying they should be, but face fact.  Your ego aside, you must realize
that government just doesn't think that taxation is really threatened by
digital bearer devices.  They think its threatened by the jurisdictional
questions.  Period.

>In the last few weeks, I've been thinking about the utility and 
>security risk of using PGP if it can be cracked easily.
>
>And then, I realized that my reaction was probably just what they 
>expected: FUD to have people limit by themselves their use of strong 
>crypto.  Coupled with the cops saying that "of course, we can decode 
>them, but just a tad too slow to protect your childs...", I now 
>believe they just can't crack it.

I've always believed they can't.

>And with it, comes their crackdown on crypto users, their e-$ and 
>their crypted love letters.

Believe me, e$ is not really on the map yet, and to the extent it is on the
horizon the person who will bring it to their attention has not bothered to
yet.