Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu sci.crypt:15206 alt.security:9939 comp.org.eff.talk:16857 comp.security.misc:3374 comp.org.acm:1597 comp.org.ieee:1529
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.security,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.security.misc,comp.org.acm,comp.org.ieee
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wupost!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!headwall.Stanford.EDU!nntp.Stanford.EDU!arc
From: arc@leland.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Richard Conway)
Subject: Re: text of White House announcement and Q&As on clipper chip encryption
Message-ID: <1993Apr16.214109.15472@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: news@leland.Stanford.EDU (Mr News)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
References: <C5L17v.GH5@dove.nist.gov> <1qmugcINNpu9@gap.caltech.edu>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 93 21:41:09 GMT
Lines: 94

In article <1qmugcINNpu9@gap.caltech.edu> hal@cco.caltech.edu (Hal Finney) writes:
>The key question is whether non-Clipper encryption will be made illegal.
>
>>     The Administration is not saying, "since encryption
>>     threatens the public safety and effective law enforcement,
>>     we will prohibit it outright" (as some countries have
>>     effectively done); nor is the U.S. saying that "every

Does anyone know what countries are these?

>>     American, as a matter of right, is entitled to an
>>     unbreakable commercial encryption product."  There is a
>>     false "tension" created in the assessment that this issue is
>>     an "either-or" proposition.  Rather, both concerns can be,
>>     and in fact are, harmoniously balanced through a reasoned,
>>     balanced approach such as is proposed with the "Clipper
>>     Chip" and similar encryption techniques.
>
>The clear middle ground implied by these statements is to say that Americans
>have the right to Clipper encryption, but not to unbreakable encryption.
>This implies that, ultimately, non-Clipper strong encryption must become
>illegal.

With the following logical consequences
	(a) Using any code designed to obscure informatio which is 
	    not easily breakable will be illegal, including
		(i) Using code words such as ``Project P5''
		(ii) Speaking a language other than English
		(iii) Ever refering implicitly to events not known to
			everyone, eg
			"Hi John. How was last night?"
		      For all the listener knows, this may be a code for
			"Did you pick up the drugs OK last night?"
		      of be a code for
		        "OK. We blow up the Pentagon at midnight."
		(iv) Mentioning anything that could not be perfectly
		     understood by an average person with no education.
		(v) Words with more than one syllable.
		(vi) Speaking with a heavy accent that could bemisunderstood
		     by people not used to it.
		(vii) books with an "Inner meaning"...such
		      as "Animal Farm".

>(As an aside, isn't the language here jarring?  All this talk about
>"harmonious balance" when they're talking about taking away people's
>right to communications privacy?)

Yes.

>It looks like the worst nightmares raised by Dorothy Denning's proposals
>are coming true.  If the government continues on this course, I imagine
>that we will see strong cryptography made illegal.  Encryption programs
>for disk files and email, as well as software to allow for encrypted
>voice communications, will be distributed only through the
>"underground".  People will have to learn how to hide the fact that
>they are protecting their privacy.

I have a wonderful encrypter you can borrow that converts a message
eg "Meet me at 11:30 to bomb the White House. Bring some dynamite"
to an apparently (relatively) innoculous message. This message
here is an example of the output for the above message :-).

>It's shocking and frightening to see that this is actually happening here.

It is shockiong that it could happen anywhere.
It is shocking that it could happen in a country 
that has the arrogance to call itself free.

What you can do:
	(1) Write to your congress person in plain text.
	(2) Write to your congress person in encrypted text.
		(decrypter optional)
	(3) Send some random keystroked to your congressperson
	(4) Send some random keystrokes accross the US boundaries,
		and keep the spooks busy trying to decode it.
	(5) Write your own encryption algorithms.
	(6) Don't buy clipper products.

P.S. I can't work out why the US government doesn't want to sell
them overseas. After all, they are rather easy for US interests to decode,
so make a perfect tool for industrial/military espionage...lulling 
anyone stupid enough to buy it into a false sense of security. You will
notice that there is NO mention anywhere about safety for non-Americans.

Disclaimer: My opinions are mine alone, and do not represent anyone elses.
I have nothing that I particularly want to hide at the moment...though I 
consider the right
to be able to use whatever method of coding data I like to be high on my
list of priorities.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Conway    arc@leland.stanford.edu  Phone: USA 415 497 1094

