gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) (08/28/86)
[Followups have been redirected to net.mail where general discussion of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act is in progress.] In article <3230@brl-smoke.ARPA>, William Bogstad writes: > In my opinion, a better law would be to protect > scrambled/encrypted conversations on the radio waves and leave > unprotected messages legally unprotected. This might encourage the > vendors to provide systems with real security and would put the law more > in step with the protection you can expect to actually have if someone > tries to break the law anyway. I believe that law should generally follow reality. Throwing a signal into the airwaves is equivalent to painting it on a wall. Anybody can come by and look at it (in reality) and some of them might be able to make some sense of it. If your business requires painting private information on public walls, you'd better be *sure* your encryption is good. A law that says "any old encryption will do" does NOT encourage vendors to provide systems with real security -- if somebody breaks it, and they find out, they can always tie the guy up with lawyers. On the other hand, having no legal protection for any radio signals (e.g. if you can decrypt it, it's yours) provides a STRONG incentive for vendors to provide real, live, secure, working encryption. If somebody breaks the encryption, their data becomes public and they have to invent a new scheme, which costs money. Better for them to do it right the first time. Reminds me of the old gun control motto: If decryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have your data. (If decryption was legal, NOBODY would have your data, assuming you do it right.) Protecting "encrypted" signals would make it illegal to receive a radio transmission that had been run through "rot13"... -- John Gilmore {sun,ptsfa,lll-crg,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu jgilmore@lll-crg.arpa May the Source be with you!
jeff@gatech.CSNET (Jeff Lee) (08/28/86)
>Protecting "encrypted" signals would make it illegal to receive a >radio transmission that had been run through "rot13"... Which brings up interesting discussion in reference to stargate and any other projects of that sort. I write something slanderous, rot13 it, and post it to the network (making sure that it will go through a satelite transmission station). Someone sees it, DECODES it, and decides to sue and I counter-sue because they decoded an encrypted radio message. I may have shown my complete ignorance of the law (but that's no excuse :-), but I have seen some stranger things go to court. -- Jeff Lee CSNet: Jeff @ GATech ARPA: Jeff%GATech.CSNet @ CSNet-Relay.ARPA uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,seismo,ulysses}!gatech!jeff
ed@mtxinu.UUCP (Ed Gould) (08/28/86)
William Bogstad: >> In my opinion, a better law would be to protect >> scrambled/encrypted conversations on the radio waves and leave >> unprotected messages legally unprotected. This might encourage the >> vendors to provide systems with real security and would put the law more >> in step with the protection you can expect to actually have if someone >> tries to break the law anyway. John Gilmore: >I believe that law should generally follow reality. Throwing a signal >into the airwaves is equivalent to painting it on a wall. Anybody can >come by and look at it (in reality) and some of them might be able to >make some sense of it. If your business requires painting private >information on public walls, you'd better be *sure* your encryption is >good. A law that says "any old encryption will do" does NOT encourage >vendors to provide systems with real security -- if somebody breaks it, >and they find out, they can always tie the guy up with lawyers. On the >other hand, having no legal protection for any radio signals (e.g. if >you can decrypt it, it's yours) provides a STRONG incentive for vendors >to provide real, live, secure, working encryption. If somebody breaks >the encryption, their data becomes public and they have to invent a new >scheme, which costs money. Better for them to do it right the first time. John, I'm surprised to see you take this position. I agree somewhat that the law should reflect reality, and that it should not discourage the generation and use of truely secure encryptions. But suggesting that the encryption be the *only* protection is equivalent to saying that one should equip ones house with truely secure locks in order to keep out burglars. I would rather see a reasonable lock combined with a reasonable breaking-and-entering law. If the sender wants to keep a transmission private, and takes reasonable steps to do so, *and* makes it clear to potential {pirates,listeners} that the transmission is private (this would deal with the rot13 example, since that isn't used for privacy, but for discretion), then it should be illegal to decrypt. I'll have to read through all of the bill to see what it really says, though. Thanks to those who keyed it in. -- Ed Gould mt Xinu, 2560 Ninth St., Berkeley, CA 94710 USA {ucbvax,decvax}!mtxinu!ed +1 415 644 0146 "A man of quality is not threatened by a woman of equality."
gnu@utcs.UUCP (08/30/86)
In article <74@mtxinu.UUCP> ed@mtxinu.UUCP (Ed Gould) writes: >the generation and use of truely secure encryptions. But suggesting >that the encryption be the *only* protection is equivalent to saying >that one should equip ones house with truely secure locks in order to >keep out burglars. I would rather see a reasonable lock combined with >a reasonable breaking-and-entering law. I am a great fan of breaking-and-entering laws, but I don't believe that anyone "owns" a piece of the electromagnetic spectrum. If I am sitting in my house, what did I "break" or "enter" to receive your signal? Rather, your signal entered my house. If you don't want me to receive it, don't send it through my house. (Send it through coaxial cable, for example.) To rephrase your analogy, you had better equip your car with truly secure locks if you park it on other peoples' lawns.
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (08/31/86)
In article <74@mtxinu.UUCP> ed@mtxinu.UUCP (Ed Gould) writes > If the sender wants to keep a transmission private, and takes reasonable > steps to do so [...] then it should be illegal to decrypt. The problem is that there is just a finite amount of electromagnetic bandwidth (yes, I know there really isn't a theoretical limit to how high you can go, but practical limitations come into play; I believe anybody is free to transmit whatever they like above 300 GHz, but good luck getting there). As I understand things, one of the underlying postulates that has always guided FCC regulations is that because bandwidth is a limited resource, it is considered public property. To prevent chaos, we regulate what people are allowed to transmit, but since we consider the "airwaves" to be public property, we don't regulate what people can receive. There seems to be a slow but continuing trend away from this policy, however. I consider this to be a Bad Thing. Some states, for example, have laws making it illegal to own devices capable of receiving certain frequencies (i.e. police radar). On the other hand, most people would not argue with the premise that it is illegal to monitor land-line based phone conversations. In New York (or any big city, I guess) phone wires run under the street, and physical space to put those wires is just as much a finite public resource as radio bandwidth. So, should we apply the same rules to phone lines -- I'm free to listen in as long as I don't interfere? This is one of those articles that raises a lot of questions without attempting to provide any answers (let alone ram those answers down peoples' throats). Consider this just food for thought. -- Roy Smith, {allegra,philabs}!phri!roy System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
kre@munnari.OZ (Robert Elz) (08/31/86)
In article <1986Aug30.142414.21634@utcs.uucp>, gnu@utcs.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: > I am a great fan of breaking-and-entering laws, but I don't believe that > anyone "owns" a piece of the electromagnetic spectrum. The concept of "ownership" is just defined by common agreement - Parliament (Congress) can disposess you of your house tomorrow if it wants. Similarly, they can give you half the Pacific Ocean, or half the electromagnetic spectrum, or anything else they like. All laws are simply agreements by the community that it should be so, or should not be so. If the governing segment of the community (the majority in a democracy, some other part in other societies) believe that its right that the electromagnetic spectrum be owned, then it shall be. The only real difference between houses and radio waves is that for a long time now people have perceived a value in houses - they are something good to own. But until recently, there has been little perceived value in those funny things that you can't even see - so no-one has wanted to own them. Assuming that the spectrum can be owned, then there is no difference in principle between stealing some of that, and stealing the terminal from your home. Robert Elz