Subject: RE: Email Privacy eating software

From: "David A. Higginbotham" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 13:11:27 -0400

I can not disagree, however, where does the responsibility to ensure liberty
lay, and what is required to ensure said liberty? specifically, what may be
suggested that one do, assuming bearing arms is inappropriate, to ensure
email privacy in particular and 'internet' liberty in general?

-----Original Message-----
From: Book, Robert [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2000 12:45 PM
To: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Email Privacy eating software

Hmmm, I think the federal government might have another opinion that topic,
re: Waco, etc., but this is far off the topic. It's an idyllic viewpoint,
though. But I'm afraid we're at the point in history where the phrase "a
life of freedom in the United States" is an oxymoron. And, if Carnivore
isn't as clear an example of that as one needs, then one is probably wearing
rose-colored glasses.

-----Original Message-----
From: David A. Higginbotham [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2000 10:54 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Email Privacy eating software

we have the right to own anything we can dream up and build, we do not
always have the right to use it for its intended purpose

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of John Stracke
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2000 10:15 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Email Privacy eating software

Phil Neumiller wrote:

> I like this idea!  Yeah, if we can reclassify black boxes as munitions, as
> the NSA has
> done to encryption for years, then we can claim that we have the "right to
> bear black
> boxes".

...just like we have the right to own nuclear weapons.

--
/==============================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.|
|Chief Scientist |=============================================|
|eCal Corp.      |You buttered your bread, now lie in it.      |
[email-masked]|                                             |
\==============================================================/

---

From: Brian Lloyd <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 11:37:47 -0700 (PDT)

> email privacy in particular and 'internet' liberty in general?

If you cannot fight back against oppression, you have already lost.  I
believe that the Jewish people in Europe learned that lesson in a rather
painful manner some time back.  Of course, *our* government would *never*
try to abridge our rights in the name of The Greater Good.  The corolary
would be that the government always has our (collective) best interests at
heart and therefore fighting back is never appropriate.  

Personally, I satisfy my desire for privacy by using strong encryption
wherever possible.  I sure hope I am not hurting any feelings at the FBI.

This is a subject of great interest but probably not relevant to the
purpose of this specific group.

Brian Lloyd
[email-masked]
+1.530.676.6513

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 15:33:11 -0400

> wherever possible.  I sure hope I am not hurting any feelings at the FBI.

From the Sendmail 8.11 Release notes:

        Support SMTP Service Extension for Secure SMTP (RFC 2487) (STARTTLS).
                Implementation influenced by the example programs of
                OpenSSL and the work of Lutz Jaenicke of TU Cottbus.
        Support the security layer in SMTP AUTH for mechanisms which
                support encryption.  Based on code contributed by Tim
                Martin of CMU.

I'm sure that the guys who run Echelon will be overjoyed when this
ships (Real Soon Now ;)

They'll be even more overjoyed if a lot of sites start using it...

-- 
				Valdis Kletnieks
				Operating Systems Analyst
				Virginia Tech

---

From: Brian Lloyd <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 12:49:25 -0700

>They'll be even more overjoyed if a lot of sites start using it...

That will be nice.  But even PGP suffices for now.  I do my level best to 
get people with whom I regularly correspond to install and use PGP, 
including those outside the USoA.  If we use strong encryption for even 
trivial/uninteresting messages we deny those who believe that they should 
have access to our information even the hint of which messages might be 
more interesting than others.  And as encrypted traffic increases, the task 
of determining which messages are "interesting" becomes even more 
difficult, perhaps to the point where it becomes effectively 
impossible.  This seems reasonable and proper to me.

Brian Lloyd                          Lucent Technologies
[email-masked]                      3461 Robin Lane, Suite 1
http://www.livingston.com            Cameron Park, CA  95682
+1.530.676.6513 - voice              +1.530.676.3442 - fax

---

From: Jon Crowcroft <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 08:30:52 +0100

yo udont know about RIP then

if you visit the UK, and are asked to show any files on your computer,
you cannot claim you "cannot remember the key"

that wil lbe deemed evidence that you are witholding evidence and yo
ucan go to jail jus for that.,. i.e. our new crypto-fascist law takes
away the right to the presumption of innocence  ratehr than guilt....

its like escrow only worse.

the technology is irrelevant in the face of such blatant misuse of
human rights.

In message <[email-masked]>, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt
.edu typed:

 >>--==_Exmh_-1181880606P
 >>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
 >>
 >>--==_Exmh_-1181880606P
 >>Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
 >>
 >>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
 >>Version: PGP 6.5.2
 >>Comment: Exmh version 2.2 06/16/2000
 >>
 >>iQA/AwUBOXNfd3At5Vm009ewEQKIBQCggRF7jNDyYQ/cG2xKyslLmUMsV8cAniiG
 >>5lm3CU9pa16pA/glvpxj6bU5
 >>=fDJm
 >>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 >>
 >>--==_Exmh_-1181880606P--
 >>

 cheers

   jon

---

From: "Anthony Atkielski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 10:36:42 +0200

> the technology is irrelevant in the face of such blatant misuse of

Well, the U.K. is supposed to be a democracy; why don't you just vote to get
your rights restored?

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 13:20:58 +0100 (BST)

> its like escrow only worse.

See http://www.stand.org.uk/
    http://www.ntk.net/index.cgi?back=2000/now0714.txt&line=18#l

The RIP bill's currently being debated.

L.

<[email-masked]>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 14:02:52 +0100 (BST)

On Tue, 18 Jul 2000, Anthony Atkielski wrote:

> Well, the U.K. is supposed to be a democracy;

actually, it's a 'constitutional monarchy', with no elections in the
executive branch.

http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/uk.html#gov

hth,

L.

> why don't you just vote to get your rights restored?

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 09:19:55 -0400

> yo udont know about RIP then

I'm quite aware of RIP.

> you cannot claim you "cannot remember the key"

This is about session keys - Sendmail will do SSL connections (basically).

You ever found the key for an HTTP SSL session? If you did, that would be
considered breaking SSL.  

I really hope that the Brits making this poor law understand the distiction
for session keys, or they can kiss e-commerce goodbye. ;)

---

From: Jon Crowcroft <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 14:48:02 +0100

In message <[email-masked]>, Ll

 >>The RIP bill's currently being debated.

see also
http://www.fipr.org/rip/
for the gory details...

 cheers

   jon