- cypherpunks-legacy@lists.ogf.org

Media Sugestions, History of Clipper and Conspiracy theories
by Dave Banisar 18 Apr '93

18 Apr '93

RE: Press Blitz I have found from experience, with some success, that the best way to handle press if you to contact local press and present yourself as a local expert on the subject. This gives them a local connection for their stories. You should have apack ready to send them, including copies of the White House documents, and a 1 page fact sheet of your own pointing out the problems with the proposal. Present yourself as a local computer scientist who sees the deeper issues behind this proposal and wants to air them. The major national newspapers are already covering this but its the smaller local papers that most people read. Only a few million people total read the NY Times, Washinging Post etc. Thinks of the millions that read their local papers and get to them. If they respond, this will be killed. History of Clipper: As I mentioned before, Iwas at the NIST press Conference on Fri. They responded to a question by saying that they had been working on this for 4 years and had been implimenting it for 14 months. Suggestion for campaign name: Clip the Clipper! Mailing List: No CPSR, etc. were not involved as a cabal supporting this dingbat proposal. If you beliueve that then go back to reading your endless JFK/CIA/Mafia/aliens conspiracy theory books and let the rest of us go on living in the real world. They have put together a very slick electronic media blitz here, sending the proposal to every applicable newsgroup etc. Dave Banisar CPSR Washington Office

2 1

Hellman cogitates on the Clipper Chip
by jwarren＠autodesk.com 18 Apr '93

18 Apr '93

Received this on Saturday and got Marty's permission to repost it to 'punks. --jim ======

1 0

CLIP: Chip -- Modification?
by Doctor Zaphod 18 Apr '93

18 Apr '93

I havn't waded thru the entire stream of CypherPunks mail yet... but I thought I'd make a suggestion. If the clipper chip DOES in fact become widespread, in telephones, modems, whatever.. why don't we make an alternative chip [say.. based off the IDEA cypher and PGP keys] that uses the same pinouts as the Clipper chip. We, on the list, have been waiting for devices with the capability for encryption.. and it sounds as if ATT will be making it easier for us! Of course there might be some legal conflict with modifiying the devices.. and I think that's where our battle begins. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | DrZaphod | Stop, or I'll Encrypt! | | [AC/DC] / [DnA][HP] | Xcitement is Technology and Creativity | | [drzaphod(a)ncselxsi.uucp] | [Mind Police Censored] | --------------------------------------------------------------------- DrZaphod [AC/DC] / [DnA][HP] [drzaphod(a)ncselxsi.uucp] Technicolorized

1 0

IMPORTANT!
by hal＠alumni.cco.caltech.edu 18 Apr '93

18 Apr '93

Based on some of the suggestions I've seen here and on the net, I am inclined more to believe that there is no threat to make non Clipper cryptography illegal. The plan instead is to make it a de facto standard for all encrypted voice communications. You will notice in the AT&T press release posted here that AT&T is offering to release its technical information in order to allow this standardization to proceed. (As the release said, you need more than just a common encryption standard, you also need standardization on the voice encoding.) AT&T is obviously in bed with the government on this, and it doesn't really matter at this point why. It's a big company and the government can do a lot for it. AT&T is apparently determined to take whatever steps are necessary for this standardization to come about. As far as non-clipper encryption, I imagine the government will initially exert as much influence as it can to prevent any competing standard from getting a toehold. They have apparently waited until the chips were ready to deliver in quantity. AT&T is promising to release clipper phones later this year. It's doubtful that anyone else could even come up with a standard that soon, let alone get it into hardware (or firmware). If the standard does become established, it could be tough to defeat it. How easy is it going to be to sell a phone which is incompatible with everybody else's for secure communication? You'd have to buy one for everybody in your company or group who wanted to communicate. Then if they wanted to make a secure call to someone outside (say, a supplier or distributor) they wouldn't be able to do it. It would be a similar problem to the video phones. Why buy one when almost no one else has one and so you can hardly ever use it? Who will buy a Beta VCR today? An RCA non-laser video disk? Non-clipper encrypted phones may experience similar lack of success. I think this is their main strategy. If it doesn't work, they have a fallback before they would have to forbid encryption in the way we have feared. That is to forbid the sale of commercial devices with non-clipper encryption. You don't stop private individuals from making their own devices, you just make it illegal to sell them. There is precedent for this, I think, in the scanner business. You can't sell scanners capable of eavesdropping on cellular calls. But nothing stops you from building your own if you are an electronics whiz. (I am not expert on the legalities of scanner law. Someone please correct me if I am wrong here.) Notice that in their document they said that U.S. citizens do not have the right to unlimited-strength commercial encryption. I didn't pay much attention to the word "commercial" before, but now I think it is important. This would imply that their next step would be to ban only commercial implementations of cryptography. This way they can counter our civil-liberties arguments by saying that nothing stops anyone from encrypting his messages if he really wants to; he's doing it in the privacy of his own home, after all. But when he gets out in the commercial arena the government has many precedents for limiting what is bought and sold, the scanner laws being just one of many. I'm not sure how ominous such a world would be - clipper chips dominating the (small) encrypted phone market, no commercial competition, and only a few hobbyists with PC's and modems able to set up clumsy untappable conversations via modem-to-modem links. I might be able to talk to Tim May securely, but not to Mom and Dad. In a way, I can still have privacy, if I really want it. But it won't be available to most people. I wouldn't be surprised if something similar to this vision were the goal of those behind the clipper. Hal

1 0

clipper
by Timothy Newsham 18 Apr '93

18 Apr '93

smb(a)att.com has created a newsgroup for clipper conversation. alt.privacy.clipper I believe. I think it would be best (in keeping traffic here down and in getting everybody interested in clipper together) if everyone uses that newsgroup for clipper topics if possible.

1 0

illustrating govt's preoccupation with terrorism
by jwarren＠autodesk.com 18 Apr '93

18 Apr '93

This is an excerpt from a LONG msg echoed to me by Dave Farber. Though it's from USIA -- not a police/enforcement agency -- it is nonetheless heavily concerned with "terrorism", the theme repeatedly referenced in the White House's Clipper Chip announcement. I've included the first part down through the first article as an example, and gave only the headlines of the remaining articles -- but you get the idea. Just FYI. [And, no, I don't know where/how Dave got it electronically in the first place. :-) ] --jim =============== Posted-Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1993 11:15:04 -0500 From: David Farber <farber(a)central.cis.upenn.edu> X-Sender: farber(a)linc.cis.upenn.edu Subject: I hope this continues to be distributed To: interesting-people(a)eff.org (interesting-people mailing list) >UNITED STATES INFORMATION AGENCY >FOREIGN MEDIA REACTION--DAILY DIGEST > >For further information: Anne Chermak, Chief >Media Reaction Staff (P/M), Tele. No. (202) 619-6511 > >Monday, April 12, 1993 > > TERRORISM AND WORLD INSECURITY > >In recent editorials, Iran was universally recognized as the source >of the double threat of state-sponsored terrorism and Islamic >extremism. But beyond this fear and condemnation, journalists found >little common ground that would compel both North and South, and Arab >and non-Arab nations to work together to combat the global threat of >terrorism. For example, Egyptian and Algerian papers were in the >forefront in charging U.S. complicity in the current instability in >the Middle East. Those commentators asserted that the United States >had promoted Islamic fundamentalism during the Afghanistan War and >had further added to regional instability by alternately encouraging >Iraq and Iran. > >India's papers weighed the pros and cons of helping the West to >identify Pakistan's role in promoting terrorism, noting on the one >hand that doing so could "bring ruination to Islamabad's Kashmir >cause" but, on the other, could also bring India's security apparatus >uncomfortably close to the CIA and the Mossad. Arab papers continued >to portray Iraq and Libya as being unfairly treated by the UN while >Israel remains unpunished for resolutions which it has violated. > >Concerning Northern Ireland, President Clinton's message of >consolation to the victims of the Warrington bombing was seen in >British tabloids as signalling a tougher stance by the American >government against violence by the IRA. > > > >This survey is based on 32 reports from 10 countries, April 1-12. > >EDITOR: Gail H. Burke > > ===== This goes on for many pages with a range of article summaries including: > MIDDLE EAST >ALGERIA: "Middle East Equation Has Changed" >"Injustice Will Not Defeat Dignity" >"After the Neglect...Wake Up, Washington!" >"U.S. Did Not Make the Best Choice" >"Change of Tone" >EGYPT: "West Will Not Let Go Of Libya" >"Can Anybody Explain U.S. Contradictory Posture Regarding Iran?" >"Who Will Anti-Terrorism Front Target?" >"Puzzling Approach To Abdel Rahman's Stay In U.S." >"An Insult To Egyptian People, Leadership" >"Islamic Extremism Threat Has Links To Afghanistan War" >JORDAN: "Call For Arab Unity" >"Clinton Administration Should Start A New Page with Iraq" >"Arabs Should Not Support The U.S. Against Iran" >MOROCCO: "Something New In Lockerbie Issue?" >"The West Has To Understand Libya's Flexibility" >TUNISIA: "Why The War On Muslims?" > SOUTH ASIA >INDIA: "Time To Be Worldly-Wise" >"War By Other Means" >"Perils Of Intelligence Links With The CIA And Mossad" >"Embittering Ties With Pakistan" >PAKISTAN: "Another Step Closer" >"Terrorism In Kashmir" > EUROPE >BRITAIN: "Northern Ireland--Significant Gesture By Clinton" >"Clinton's Blown To IRA Killers" >ITALY: "Enter Iran" >"The Ayatollah's Latest Threat" >"Silence Over Israel" >"Warning to Iran, Islamic Fundamentalism" > > LATIN AMERICA >CHILE: "Iran's Objectives"

1 0

Clipper details via Hellman
by karn＠qualcomm.com 18 Apr '93

18 Apr '93

1 0

Fighting the Wiretap Chip Plan
by tcmay＠netcom.com 18 Apr '93

18 Apr '93

(I'm using the "Wiretap Chip" name instead of "Clipper," as someone has suggested. It _does_ carry a better message.) This essay is bit rambling, as I'm in my lousy editor and don't have time to rearrange things into a more formal essay. Instead, I'll just make a number of points. I've seen a lot of discussion here about who to talk to, how to phrase the issues, and so forth. Fax numbers (good!), phone numbers, etc. But let me point out that the public discussion is not likely to do very much, for several reasons. 1. A very tiny universe of listeners. Crypto is too abstract for most people. I doubt anything we say can change this. And "privacy" is a complicated theme....the anti- and pro-abortion sides have been bandying it about for over a decade, to little avail. The key is to reach the relatively small fraction of policy shapers, both outside government and inside. 2. Journalists want the pithy quote, the sound bite, the attention grabber. They don't really care if 37 faxes have been received in support of some position--that just isn't news. I often shake my head in despair at the demands for "good quotes," but I still try to spew them out. Ironically, my .sig block, with all the comments about "crypto anarchy," "information markets," "zero knowledge," etc., often were the triggers that got me in touch with journalists. For example, Julian Dibell of the "Village Voice" saw my stuff in sci.crypt last fall and called me...only then did he learn of the existence of the Cypherpunks group. Likewise, Kevin Kelly, of "Whole Earth Review" fame, and now editor of "Wired," contacted me to ask about the terms in my cryptically cryptic sig. (Some people have already put good stuff about "Stop the Big Brother Chip" and "Say No to the Wiretap Chip" in their sigs...this is great advertising!) 3. I've been interviewed on crypto matters by several journalists, all of whom I respect. (They were, for the record: Steven Levy, for the "Wired" piece, Kevin Kelly, as editor of "Wired" and for a possible story in "Whole Earth Review," Julian Dibell, for "The Village Voice" (forthcoming, he tells me), Dave Mandl, for a radio station in New Jersey, and a couple of minor quotes here and there. (I can't begin to compete of course with John Gilmore or Eric Hughes, in terms of numbers of interviews.) 4. My conclusion is that the very term "Cypherpunks" was useful--even though I had little to do with choosing the name and sometimes find it distasteful (I prefer Miles Davis to Nine Inch Nails, for example). Consider that there are already several well-publicized groups devoted to various aspects of computer privacy: the EFF, the CPSR, the ACLU, etc. (these groups should be well-known to all of you). Before we came along, complete with our semi-outlaw, trendy name, the standard process when a crypto or privacy issue came up would be to get obligatory interviews with John Perry Barlow (I like him, but if I read one more account of his experiences as a lyricist for the Grateful Dead I'm going to puke...this is overexposure with a capital "O"), Mitch Kapor, and various folks from the ACLU and CPSR. The Cypherpunks provide a useful contrast, in my opinion. 5. And the Cypherpunks turn out to have a lot of very bright and interesting people, including many from the phone phreaker community, the PGP development community, and various other subcultures (like FidoNet, modem makers, wireless communications, and so on). This automatically makes us more diverse than groups like the CPSR and ACLU. 6. In a sense, we occupy an ecological niche that meets certain journalistic needs. 7. In summary, I wouldn't place a lot of emphasis on standard political actions...it just doesn't go very far. Talking to our friends and family will have a miniscule effect, both in raw numbers and because the next election is a long way off. Need I say more? Subversive actions that generate media attention, that trigger other people to begin to do things (such as homebrew voice encryption with SoundBlaster boards and CELP compression, as just one example), and that create new communities (Cypherpunks, Extropians, etc.), are much more effective. By the way, in a more standard way of doing things, I've been in touch with Jim Bidzos, President of RSA Data Security. I sent out a note on this recently. And I'll be meeting this evening with Eric Hughes, who's visiting the Monterey Bay area. We may be calling an emergency meeting of the Cypherpunks soon. Stay tuned. Don't get me wrong, folks. These are crucial times. A "War on Crypto" that mimics the "War on Drugs" is a distinct possibility. Any actions we take, from writing letters to calling t.v. stations to boycotting vendors of the "Wiretap Chip," will be useful. -Tim -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.

1 0

MEDIA: Adam Smith
by David Reeve Sward 18 Apr '93

18 Apr '93

One person I didn't see listed is Adam Smith. Sometime during the last week of March he aired a piece about privacy - use of SSN, the information you can get via computer & modem and others. He may be receptive to wiretap chip debate. -- David Sward sward+(a)cmu.edu Finger or email for PGP public key 3D567F fingerprint = E5 16 82 B0 3C 96 DB 6F B2 FB DC 8F 82 CB E9 45

1 0

Media Blitz
by uni＠acs.bu.edu 18 Apr '93

18 Apr '93

Having sent faxes to all the targets on my media list, I'm looking for the following: 1> A Fax number for AT&T public relations so I can explain to them that they can count my business out if they don't wise up. 2> A Fax number for Intergraph Corp 3> Internet addresses for same. I sent the following text to several media contacts: April 18, 1993 Sir or Madam, I am sending this text to call your attention to what I and others believe to be a grievous attack on privacy for the private sector and the public at large. On April 16, 1993 the White House Office of the Press Secretary issued a statement regarding the administration's emerging policy on encryption hardware and technology. In short this policy is a ruse. With the increasing reliance on data links and E-Mail to communicate, cryptography has evolved to protect the otherwise vulnerable data traffic in this country. E-Mail and data transfers are not as secure from tampering and compromise as is the postal service. Messages sent through mail nets have no "envelopes" and are unprotected from the prying eyes of system administrators on any of the many nodes a message may pass through. Indeed those using electronic mediums for mail services are entitled to some reasonable assurance of privacy. As a result, cryptography and encryption have become fruitful industries in this country. The Clinton administration seems well on the way to destroying this industry and stomping on the rights of citizens to secure their communications from surveillance. The "Clipper Chip Proposal," which is becoming known in the academic community as the "Big Brother Proposal," bills itself as a solution to the conflict between law enforcement and "crypto industry." It is not. By enforcing the Clipper technology as a standard, the Clinton administration has taken the first step in regulating all encryption technology and selling short the American people. The Clipper technology, by the administration's own admission, is compromised from the beginning. Cipher keys for Clipper hardware are to be segmented and stored in depositories maintained by two agencies, (which remain yet unnamed) and released with "the proper authorization." No one educated in the nuances of encryption would take such a system seriously. Willingness to accept a system that comes already compromised is simply unimaginable, at least while other systems are still around. The administration insists that the algorithm for the Clipper technology is secret, and will not be released to the academic sector or the public at large. A vital part of the development process of any new algorithm is its' ability to withstand the scrutiny of the academic and private sectors. The current encryption standard (DES) is a prime example. The algorithm for DES was made available to the academic and private sectors at no loss of security to those using DES based systems. Indeed the weaknesses of DES were eventually revealed by the academic sector as a direct result of this scrutiny. Part of the mark of a well designed system is in the ability to remain secure despite disclosure of the algorithm. No entity can be expected to trust such a system without being able to review it for additional "backdoors" written into the system. I cannot fathom that the administration has not realized these points. They must know that such a system as the Clipper Chip is unmarketable and doomed to failure in its' current state. As long as other technology remains available, who would buy the Clipper Chip? And how does the introduction of the Clipper Chip aid law enforcement in protecting American citizens? Alone it does not. Any organization, criminal or otherwise, would be quite content to patronize other vendors not employing the Clipper Chip, many of which currently exist. I can only assume then that the administration's next step is to place heavy regulations on other hardware and software products not utilizing Clipper Chip technology, using the availability of Clipper systems to justify their move. The increasingly authoritarian methods the administration continues to adopt deserve careful scrutiny. The precedents established by this move, namely the regulation of the software industry, denial of reasonable freedom from government intrusion in personal affairs, and government created technology monopolies, are more than alarming, but dangerous. When confronted with the possibility of facing fines or criminal penalties for which computer program we use, the phrase I hear more and more often is, "I can't believe it's happening here." Most Concerned, [Signature] Shaen Logan Bernhardt I (uni(a)acs.bu.edu) Are my letters annyoing anyone yet? uni (Dark)

1 0