mdr@reed.UUCP (Mike Rutenberg) (10/08/87)
I figured this might be worth reposting. I'm never sure how seriously to take much of the information I see, this being no different, but I find it interesting none the less (they give me something to think about as I brush my teeth). Mike -------------- Start of forwarded message Date: Fri, 25 Sep 87 09:05 EST From: "GLENN EVERHART, 609 486 6328" <uw-beaver!RELAY.CS.NET!rca.com!ARISIA!EVERHART> Subject: Secure phones The NSA is involved in distributing these phones as part of a more general effort to get at least some US companies to have reliable security. The story I've heard (though I don't have it from classified sources) is something like this: 1. DES was originally certified, but was designed with a short enough key that NSA could break it by brute force. (It IS a federal law that no cipher may be used for international traffic that NSA can't break, so the permeability of DES follows from reading the relevant US Code sections.) The classified algorithms are said to differ from DES mainly in the length of their keys. 2. Recently, someone furnished NSA with an efficient DES breaking algorithm. This was said to take 1.5 hrs. on an IBM PC to break a DES cipher. I understand that hard details of this have been classified and NSA does NOT particularly want to confirm this. Still, some NSA employees have confirmed that DES is not nearly as secure as was originally thought. Thus, NSA isn't going to certify DES again, at least not willingly, because they KNOW it's breakable. (It's been suggested that a different key scheduling data area could give a more secure algorithm, but the generator for the key schedulers is not available, at least not readily.) An Australian friend of mine mentioned he saw an article on breaking DES back in '79 or '80 in the Proceedings of the Soviet Academy of Sciences, but has since told me the article deals only with certain classes of keys. (BTW, it also mentions that if you insist on choosing large PRIMES for public key cryptosystems keys, the public key systems become fairly easy to crack also; what's needed are RELATIVELY PRIME numbers, not primes.) 3. Since DES has proven embarassingly easy to crack, and since large amounts of money are "protected" by it, NSA is proposing to let industry use the "real stuff", the algorithms they use themselves, which hopefully are less permeable. To do so, they furnish algorithms and keys (preserving the ability they have by law to decipher the text), but are paying fairly large sums to develop these phones and other boxes. A good deal of custom microelectronics is involved. And this is why you see NSA discussing crypto phones etc. (You are of course aware I trust that ANY phone conversation that gets onto microwave is potentially as open to interception as home radiophones are...and many of thesse links to industry ARE monitored...) I've heard another story someone might comment on: Some US company (I forget which; it's not important) sent a binary copy of an operating system over wire to England. However they used the unix crypt tool on it first, more than once and with different keys. The story is they got a call a few days later from NSA demanding they give NSA the keys used to encipher it. The algorithm is just character XORs with a string. But if you do it several times with strings of lengths that are relatively prime, couldn't the effective string become the product of the key lengths, and quickly grow comparable in size with the original message? Does anyone out there know enough cryptography to tell me whether this is really a super cheap and strong cipher, or whether it's just a minor nuisance for folks who go in for this sort of thing? Glenn Everhart%Arisia.decnet@ge-crd.arpa ----------------- End of forwarded message -- Reed College -- Portland, Oregon -- 503/775-7003 (before 9am)
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (10/08/87)
In article <7449@reed.UUCP> mdr@reed.UUCP (Mike Rutenberg) writes: >From: "GLENN EVERHART, 609 486 6328" >(It IS a federal law that >no cipher may be used for international traffic that NSA can't break, >so the permeability of DES follows from reading the relevant US Code >sections.) What rubbish. That entire article was written on the assumption that there is an absolute meaning to "breakable", whereas in fact nearly all practical cryptosystems can be cracked SOME of the time but not ALL of the time, depending on "fuzzy" circumstances such as message length, key length, availability of isomorphs, luck with "probable words", amount of time spent in the cryptanalysis, who the cryptanalyst is, availability of collateral information, etc. Overseas cable traffic has been encrypted for decades. Last I heard, it was against the law for anyone (including NSA) to intercept such communications, but that of course doesn't mean they don't. It's strange how, as comes to light every once in a while, government agencies continually place themselves "above the law". It's a serious problem, in my estimation; if a demonstrably necessary governmental function cannot be accomplished within the law, change the law (probably by repeal of strait-jacketing regulations)! >2. Recently, someone furnished NSA with an efficient DES breaking >algorithm. This was said to take 1.5 hrs. on an IBM PC to break a DES >cipher. I don't know the source of this information, but there of course can be NO algorithm that is GUARANTEED to crack an ARBITRARY sample of encrypted text in a specified amount of time. Given sufficiently suitable circumstances (see previous comment), 1.5 hours of IBM PC time (properly employed) is sufficient to crack almost any system in practical use; the problem is that there is seldom a guarantee of success for any particular sample of ciphertext. >Thus, NSA isn't going to certify DES again, at >least not willingly, because they KNOW it's breakable. I don't think the NSA certified DES in the first place; NBS did. Certainly NSA knows that nearly any cryptosystem can be cracked under suitable circumstances; why would DES be an exception? >3. Since DES has proven embarassingly easy to crack, ... Funny, it doesn't have that reputation. >And this is why you see NSA discussing crypto phones etc. And here I thought it was because they're tasked with communication intelligence, among other things. >The algorithm is just character XORs with a string. But if you do it >several times with strings of lengths that are relatively prime, >couldn't the effective string become the product of the key lengths, >and quickly grow comparable in size with the original message? Does >anyone out there know enough cryptography to tell me whether this is >really a super cheap and strong cipher, or whether it's just a minor >nuisance for folks who go in for this sort of thing? It's just a minor nuisance. That's the Vernam system, invented LONG ago and shown to have strength only slightly better than proportional to the SUM, not the PRODUCT, of the subkey lengths.
devine@vianet.UUCP (Bob Devine) (10/09/87)
> The NSA is involved in distributing these phones as part of a more > general effort to get at least some US companies to have reliable security. Yes. This is true. The spooks are willing to spend several thousand bucks per black phone for encrypted transmissions. But... > 1. DES was originally certified, but was designed with a short enough > key that NSA could break it by brute force. (It IS a federal law that > no cipher may be used for international traffic that NSA can't break[...]) The sentence about "a federal law" is hogwash. About NSA influencing the NBS to use a 56-bit key so that the NSA could break encryption: well, there have been rumors to that effect because the testing procedures and other verification stuff has never been made public. But what does 'break' really mean? A very short message might be decrypted to an entirely different message. Remember 2 ** 56 is a lot of possible encodings! > 2. Recently, someone furnished NSA with an efficient DES breaking > algorithm. This was said to take 1.5 hrs. on a PC to break a DES cipher. Horsefeathers and hogwash! It takes me > 1.5 hours on my PC to just compile a part of our networking code. > Still, some NSA employees have confirmed that DES is not nearly as > secure as was originally thought. Thus, NSA isn't going to certify > DES again, at least not willingly, because they KNOW it's breakable. It doesn't seem that DES is not secure now. It is that NSA considers the use of DES to be "putting all your eggs in one basket". Even though it is supposed to be used for "sensitive but unclassified" purposes only, everybody is using it. The NBS was not going to re-certify it for a third 5 year period but the ABA (Am. Bankers Assoc) whacked them up side the head because they want to continue using it. The proposed Type II stuff was just too expensive; plus they would have change lots of things. > An Australian friend of mine mentioned he saw an article on breaking > DES back in '79 or '80 in the Proceedings of the Soviet Academy of > Sciences, but has since told me the article deals only with certain > classes of keys. Yeah aren't them Russkies clever? First they break DES then publish the results to rub our Americanski noses in it. :-) Perhaps the keys were what are called the "weak" or "semi-weak" keys? No news here; the folks at IBM in the development of Lucifer described them. > 3. Since DES has proven embarassingly easy to crack, and since large > amounts of money are "protected" by it, NSA is proposing to let > industry use the "real stuff" [...] No the NSA was seeking to gain dominance over encrypted communications and to prevent the "all eggs in one basket" problem if a DES cracker appears. The first reason is repugnant (to me) but the last is understandable. The NSA has enjoyed a resurgence under Reagan administration. Look at the NSDD 145 proposal (which gives NSA and DOD power to set up the national data security rules). That is where the CCEP (Commercial Comspec Endorsement Program) algorithms came from. But lobbying from the ABA and ACLU has resulted in the NSA (in name NBS but NSA pulls the strings) in extending DES certification to at least 1988 when new algorithms will be released. Bob Devine
ks@a.cs.okstate.edu (Kurt F. Sauer) (10/10/87)
In article <6536@brl-smoke.ARPA> Doug Gwyn <gwyn@brl.arpa> writes: > >Overseas cable traffic has been encrypted for decades. Last I heard, >it was against the law for anyone (including NSA) to intercept such >communications, but that of course doesn't mean they don't. It's >strange how, as comes to light every once in a while, government >agencies continually place themselves "above the law". It's a >serious problem, in my estimation; if a demonstrably necessary >governmental function cannot be accomplished within the law, change >the law (probably by repeal of strait-jacketing regulations)! > I urge you to recall that: 1. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) provides for the interception of communications without warrant under certain circumstances, and with an in camera warrant under other circumstances; these provisions entail communications among points in the United States. 2. Any constitutional guarantee to privacy (I contend there is no such guarantee; it is legislated, not constituted) applies only to U.S. citizens, and the Congress (intelligence committees of both U.S. House and U.S. Senate included) agrees. It has, as reports have it, either agreed to the prior orders of the NSA dating to President H. S. Truman, or have expressly agreed to Defense's position regarding international interception and observation. In parting, I must also point out that some activities, such as America's ability to monitor, intercept, intrude in, falsely network into, interfere with, or decrypt others' communications, must remain completely covert. NSA has suffered enough serious security breaches; it needs no help from "open sky" rules or rules which indicate abilities directly or indirectly. I suggest that you take a second look at some of the founding and exponent documents; they're interesting reading, even if you don't care about the N.S.A., for example: V. James Bamford, The Puzzle Palace, New York: Penguin, 1983, 0-14- 006748-5. George A. Brownell, et al., The Origin and Development of the National Security Agency, Laguna Hills, Calif.: Aegean Park Press, 1981, 0-89412- 054-9. David Kahn, Kahn on Codes, New York: Macmillan, 1983, 0-02-560640-9. U.S. House of Representatives, Government Operations Committee, Subcmte. on Government Information and Individual Rights, Interception of Nonverbal Communications by Federal Intelligence Agencies, 94th Congress, 1st and 2nd Sessions, Washington: GPO, 1976. Other documents are available; try *your* hand at researching the Giant Ear. It's...challenging. Kurt F. Sauer Tulsa, OK
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (10/11/87)
> ... (It IS a federal law that > no cipher may be used for international traffic that NSA can't break... I'd like to see chapter and verse cited on this. Especially since the US government (and presumably other parties as well) are already in violation of any such law, due to use of inherently-unbreakable one-time encryption for high-security traffic. -- "Mir" means "peace", as in | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology "the war is over; we've won". | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry
mjr@osiris.UUCP (Marcus J. Ranum) (10/11/87)
In article <7449@reed.UUCP->, mdr@reed.UUCP (Mike Rutenberg) writes:
-> -------------- Start of forwarded message
-> From: "GLENN EVERHART, 609 486 6328"
-> <uw-beaver!RELAY.CS.NET!rca.com!ARISIA!EVERHART->
->
-> 1. DES was originally certified, but was designed with a short enough
-> key that NSA could break it by brute force. (It IS a federal law that
-> no cipher may be used for international traffic that NSA can't break,
-> so the permeability of DES follows from reading the relevant US Code
-> sections.) The classified algorithms are said to differ from DES mainly
-> in the length of their keys.
Another friend of mine says that apparently if the NSA finds you're
using a cypher system they can't break (for anything important) they'll
impound it ?!?!? Is this the case ? What does the REAL content of the
paragraph above mean. I don't think I like this...
--mjr();
--
If they think you're crude, go technical; if they think you're technical,
go crude. I'm a very technical boy. So I get as crude as possible. These
days, though, you have to be pretty technical before you can even aspire
to crudeness... -Johnny Mnemonicmjr@osiris.UUCP (Marcus J. Ranum) (10/11/87)
I believe the reference to a DES breaking alg was about the hotrod IBM PC developed at (I believe) MIT. Basically it's a PC bus with some custom hardware to drive a DES chip at high speed. I don't recall the number but it can do enough DES permutations fast enough that a brute-force attack on DES is no longer out of the question for the key size. I gathered that if it were left going it would be able to do an exhaustive attack in about 3 hours, or some reasonably short time. --mjr(); -- If they think you're crude, go technical; if they think you're technical, go crude. I'm a very technical boy. So I get as crude as possible. These days, though, you have to be pretty technical before you can even aspire to crudeness... -Johnny Mnemonic
smb@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Steven Bellovin) (10/12/87)
> ... (It IS a federal law that > no cipher may be used for international traffic that NSA can't break... I know of no such law. However, I've read of a ruling which may (or may not) have a similar impact in practice if not in theory. That is, the Export Control regulations prohibit export of cryptographic equipment with a key length greater than >64 bits, but permit such export if the key length is less than 48 bits. This was pointed out during the debate over whether or not NSA sandbagged DES, since the key length was reduced to 56 bits from the original 112.
johnm@auscso.UUCP (John B. Meaders) (10/13/87)
In article <8746@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >> ... (It IS a federal law that >> no cipher may be used for international traffic that NSA can't break... >I'd like to see chapter and verse cited on this. Especially since the US >government (and presumably other parties as well) are already in violation ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ I believe this law is intended for non-governmental traffic only. The military routinely one-time encrypts overseas traffic of an extremely sensitive nature. It would be foolish not too. However, I don't think a private party should feel it necessary to have something unbreakable so the NSA couldn't monitor. If they are so against it, they must be doing something illegal. There is a price to pay for freedom, and that means Uncle Sam must monitor overseas traffic and some domestic traffic to make sure involved parties aren't doing things that jeopardize our security. Please direct all flames to /dev/null because if you aren't willing to give up something for freedom, I don't want to here from you. -- John B. Meaders, Jr. 1114 Camino La Costa #3083, Austin, TX 78752 ATT: Voice: +1 (512) 451-5038 Data: +1 (512) 371-0550 UUCP: ...!ut-sally!ut-ngp!auscso!jclyde!john \johnm
whp@apr.UUCP (Wayne Pollock) (10/13/87)
There was a paper produced in 1977 by Diffe & Hellman in Computer (June 77),
entitlled "Exhaustive Cryptanalysis of the NBS Data Encryption Standard".
In this paper the authors show how using 1977 technology, DES can be broken
by exhaustive search in 12 hours (average), at a cost of $5000 per solution.
Hellman later showed that using a chosen-plaintext attack, the cost per solution
drops to $10. The cost of the machines is $20 million and $5 million
respectively (well within the reach of many countries and corparations), using
LSI (not VLSI). In 1980, Diffe increased his estimate by double but even so,
it is likely that several DES breakers have been available for many years now.
Using custom VLSI the time and cost should drop quite a bit, perhaps to only
a few hours and several cents per solution using 1986 technology.
Wayne Pollock, ...!{cbatt, ihnp4}!cbosgd!apr!whpkarn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) (10/13/87)
> I believe the reference to a DES breaking alg was about the hotrod > IBM PC developed at (I believe) MIT. Basically it's a PC bus with some custom > hardware to drive a DES chip at high speed. I don't recall the number but it > can do enough DES permutations fast enough that a brute-force attack on DES > is no longer out of the question for the key size. I gathered that if it were > left going it would be able to do an exhaustive attack in about 3 hours, or > some reasonably short time. I really wish people would do simple, back-of-the-envelope sanity checks before posting things like this. Three hours is 10,800 seconds. There are 2^56 or about 7.2e16 possible DES keys. To do an exhaustive attack in 3 hours would therefore require each key to be checked in .15 picoseconds (1 picosec is .001 nanoseconds). Even if you double this time to allow for only half of the keys to be checked in an average search, this figure is so far outside the capabilities of a PC with ANY custom hardware as to be purely bogus. Of course, this is not to say that someone hasn't found a shortcut solution to the DES algorithm (highly unlikely, but still possible) or that somebody cracked a particular encrypted file where the key was an English word or something else easily "guessed" by an cracker with lots of word lists. Phil
jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) (10/13/87)
In article <471@auscso.UUCP> johnm@auscso.UUCP (John B. Meaders, Jr.) writes: >... However, I don't think a private party should >feel it necessary to have something unbreakable so the NSA couldn't monitor. >If they are so against it, they must be doing something illegal. There is >a price to pay for freedom, and that means Uncle Sam must monitor overseas >traffic and some domestic traffic to make sure involved parties aren't >doing things that jeopardize our security. Please direct all flames to >/dev/null because if you aren't willing to give up something for freedom, >I don't want to here from you. I am willing to give up many things for freedom. However, it is impossible to give up freedom for freedom, because once you've given it up, you don't have it. I am strongly against having the NSA monitor my phone conversations. As best I can tell, Mr. Meaders must then believe that I "must be doing something illegal" -- the Ed Meese theory of justice that turns the presumption of innocence on its head. I submit that anyone who is against the following statement: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. is an enemy of this country, no matter how many "patriotic" statements he or she makes. This statement was composed before the invention of the telephone; anyone who claims that a wiretap or other forms of surveillance isn't a search is a sophist. The NSA may tap my phone if it gets a warrant, based on specific evidence. Period. -- - Joe Buck {uunet,ucbvax,sun,decwrl,<smart-site>}!epimass.epi.com!jbuck Old internet mailers: jbuck%epimass.epi.com@uunet.uu.net
jmm@thoth16.berkeley.edu.BERKELEY.EDU (10/13/87)
In article <471@auscso.UUCP> johnm@auscso.UUCP (John B. Meaders, Jr.) writes: >However, I don't think a private party should >feel it necessary to have something unbreakable so the NSA couldn't monitor. >If they are so against it, they must be doing something illegal. There is >a price to pay for freedom, and that means Uncle Sam must monitor overseas >traffic and some domestic traffic to make sure involved parties aren't >doing things that jeopardize our security.... >-- >John B. Meaders, Jr. 1114 Camino La Costa #3083, Austin, TX 78752 >ATT: Voice: +1 (512) 451-5038 Data: +1 (512) 371-0550 >UUCP: ...!ut-sally!ut-ngp!auscso!jclyde!john > \johnm Why must I be doing something illegal if I don't wan't the government to read about it? On a purely practical basis, I do not consider the security record of several government agencies (including the NSA) to be of a high enough standard for me to be sure my information was not going to reach unwanted persons. If secrets can be sold to the East Bloc, they can certainly be sold to commercial interests (and probably with more profit, considering therates that Pollard etc. have received.) Even more important is that I have the right to say whatever I want to to whomever I wish without any hint of government interference. The government doesn't have the right to open my mail inside the US without a search warrant, and as far as I'm concerned they don't have the right to open it outside of the United States. (This includes having foreign intelligence agencies read it for them.) If the government wishes to read my mail, they must first convince a judge to issue a search warrant. If a warrant is issued, and then messages are decrypted, and the information contained in those messages violates the law of the United States, then the government should bring criminal charges in a court of law. Any othter course of action (such as reading all encrypted material on the basis that it _might_ be illegal) is unconstitutional. James Moore ...!ucbvax!leggatt!jmm "Ocus ba hairi no fertha leu acht cluchi ocus cheti ocus anius ocus aibinnius ocus longad ocus tomailt, conid de sin atat na trenae samna sechnon na hErend." -as an sceal _Seirgligi Con Culaind inso sis ocus oenet Emire_ James Moore ..!ucbvax!jmm "Ocus ba hairi no fertha leu acht cluchi ocus cheti ocus anius ocus aibinnius ocus longad ocus tomailt, conid de sin atat na trenae samna sechnon na hErend." -as an sceal _Seirgligi Con Culaind inso sis ocus oenet Emire_
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (10/14/87)
In article <471@auscso.UUCP> johnm@auscso.UUCP (John B. Meaders, Jr.) writes:
-If they are so against it, they must be doing something illegal. There is
-a price to pay for freedom, and that means Uncle Sam must monitor overseas
-traffic and some domestic traffic to make sure involved parties aren't
-doing things that jeopardize our security. Please direct all flames to
-/dev/null because if you aren't willing to give up something for freedom,
-I don't want to here from you.
I think many people do not believe that privacy, or the principle of
"innocent until proven guilty", or "due process", must necessarily
be surrendered in the name of freedom.ks@a.cs.okstate.edu (Kurt F. Sauer) (10/14/87)
In article <8746@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >> ... (It IS a federal law that >> no cipher may be used for international traffic that NSA can't break... >I'd like to see chapter and verse cited on this. Especially since the US >government (and presumably other parties as well) are already in violation I'm having a good time reading these articles, because they're so chocked full of ambitious--patently false--rumor. Really: it's better than Days of Our Lives! Folks, there is no law which proscribes a person from using an encipherment system which is unbreakable by the US National Security Agency. I would like to point out, parenthetically, that I suspect few--if any--people really know precisely which systems of cipher NSA is able to break. Certainly no businessman who's buying encrypting equipment to protect his international business from industrial espionage is likely to know; perhaps he is inclined to use one-time pads for his sensitive communications! Let's get back to discussions of substance, not speculation. I really dislike the arguments about "invasion of my privacy is the price that we must pay." I happen to agree with the statement--in certain respects-- but the logical conclusion we're conspiring toward is plainly incorrect. (Plus, it seems to me a bit out of the charter of this newsgroup.) Kurt F. Sauer Tulsa, OK
stever@videovax.Tek.COM (Steven E. Rice, P.E.) (10/15/87)
In article <5416@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, James Moore (jmm@thoth16.berkeley.edu.BERKELEY.EDU) writes: > . . . > Even more important is that I have the right to say whatever > I want to to whomever I wish without any hint of government interference. A novel idea! Not one that is supported by the Constitution or the law, however. . . You do not have the right to say or print falsehoods about others ("slander" and "libel," respectively). You do not have the right to falsely shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater. You do not have the right to tell your employer's competitor the details of your employer's trade secrets (theft of trade secrets). You do not have the right to say, "I'm gonna kill the President!" You do not have the right to divulge the contents of radio broadcasts unless they were intended for a general audience (Communications Act of 1939). Nor do you have the right to divulge classified material to an unauthorized person. Remember the Pollard case (he and his wife were spying for Israel)? That was only a few months ago. Within the past year, a case was broken in which several Navy men were spying for the Soviets. And there was another case in which a naturalized man of Chinese ancestry was spying for Red China (he committed suicide in his jail cell, as I recall). Each of these people were arrested (and in most cases, convicted) of saying whatever they wanted to (classified material) to whomever they wished (foreign governments). You most emphatically do *not* "have the right to say whatever [you] want to to whomever [you] wish without any hint of government interference." *Most* of your speech is indeed thus protected. But not all!!! > The government doesn't have the right to open my mail inside > the US without a search warrant, and as far as I'm concerned > they don't have the right to open it outside of the United States. > . . . Please note that the Supreme Court has ruled on this issue in the past and does not agree with you. > . . . Any other > course of action (such as reading all encrypted material on the > basis that it _might_ be illegal) is unconstitutional. Again, this is your interpretation of the Constitution. However, the Founding Fathers specified that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of such questions. (Note that having Congress outlaw such activities merely makes them illegal -- not unconstitutional. A later Congress could reverse itself with no basis for interference from the Supreme Court.) As of this date your views are not those of the Court. In summary, such activities *are* Constitutional, and will continue to be so until the Court reverses itself, or a Constitutional amendment is passed which specifically outlaws that which you abhor. Steve Rice ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- new: stever@videovax.tv.Tek.com old: {decvax | hplabs | ihnp4 | uw-beaver | cae780}!tektronix!videovax!stever
karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) (10/15/87)
> It would be foolish not too. However, I don't think a private party should > feel it necessary to have something unbreakable so the NSA couldn't monitor. > If they are so against it, they must be doing something illegal. There is > a price to pay for freedom, and that means Uncle Sam must monitor overseas > traffic and some domestic traffic to make sure involved parties aren't > doing things that jeopardize our security. Please direct all flames to > /dev/null because if you aren't willing to give up something for freedom, > I don't want to here from you. Before you get too carried away in your fervently patriotic defense of freedom and liberty, I'd like to quote one of our Founding Fathers. (After all, invoking their name in tones of reverent awe is quite fashionable this year. Shouldn't we look at some of the things they actually said?) "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" -- Benjamin Franklin Funny how this particular quote doesn't get much mention by those fervently patriotic individuals who are trying to tell me that they have to destroy my freedom in order to save it. Phil
johnm@auscso.UUCP (John B. Meaders) (10/15/87)
Couldn't have said it better myself. Amen.
--
John B. Meaders, Jr. 1114 Camino La Costa #3083, Austin, TX 78752
ATT: Voice: +1 (512) 451-5038 Data: +1 (512) 371-0550
UUCP: ...!ut-sally!ut-ngp!auscso!jclyde!john
\johnmmjr@osiris.UUCP (Marcus J. Ranum) (10/18/87)
In article <4623@videovax.Tek.COM>, stever@videovax.Tek.COM (Steven E. Rice) writes: > In article <5416@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, James Moore > > Please note that the Supreme Court has ruled on this issue in the past > and does not agree with you. They're just just humans, too, y'know. The supreme court is the final arbiter of justice in this land, but I do not think you are correct in your assumption that the supreme court is not possibly fallible. A judge, be (s)he human or otherwise will never be able to embody a platonic ideal of "justice". You can place your faith in kings and elected judges - I suspect the driving force that was originally behind America did NOT. You have confused POWER with justice. The government can do what it wants to its people because it CAN. Don't be so STUPID as to argue that the fact that a branch of the government authorized another branch of the government to rape its people's privacy makes it RIGHT ! --mjr(); -- If they think you're crude, go technical; if they think you're technical, go crude. I'm a very technical boy. So I get as crude as possible. These days, though, you have to be pretty technical before you can even aspire to crudeness... -Johnny Mnemonic
rab@well.UUCP (Bob Bickford) (10/19/87)
In article <471@auscso.UUCP> johnm@auscso.UUCP (John B. Meaders, Jr.) writes: [speaking of private companies' opposition to gov't listening in on their overseas traffic] >If they are so against it, they must be doing something illegal. This is *exactly* the sort of uninformed attitude that will be the death of the human race if we don't put an end to it. "Guilty until proven innocent" is a policy that only the Gestapo (and the IRS) could love. > There is >a price to pay for freedom, The price you name is essentially to GIVE UP our freedom in the event some bureaucrat thinks we might be doing something wrong. You approvingly mention domestic snooping. You justify it "to prevent someone from doing harm". (paraphrased) This sort of reasoning leads to totalitarian states; since the only way those in charge can *know* that nothing 'wrong' is being done is to be in total control. Or at least to completely eliminate any semblance of privacy, which eventually amounts to the same thing. If you think that giving up your freedom when told to by gov't is the recipe for keeping it, you're due for a rude awakening someday. I hope you survive the experience. Many Germans didn't survive THEIR brush with Authority. -- Robert Bickford {hplabs, ucbvax, lll-lcc, ptsfa}!well!rab /-------------------------------------v-------------------------------------\ | Don't Blame Me: I Voted Libertarian | Ron Paul: Libertarian for President | \-------------------------------------^-------------------------------------/
stever@videovax.Tek.COM (Steven E. Rice, P.E.) (10/20/87)
In article <1415@osiris.UUCP>, Marcus J. Ranum (mjr@osiris.UUCP) writes: > In article <4623@videovax.Tek.COM>, stever@videovax.Tek.COM (Steven E. Rice) > writes: >> In article <5416@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, James Moore >> >> Please note that the Supreme Court has ruled on this issue in the past >> and does not agree with you. > > They're just just humans, too, y'know. The supreme court is the final > arbiter of justice in this land, but I do not think you are correct in > your assumption that the supreme court is not possibly fallible. . . . Hmmmm. . . There seems to be a bit of confusion here. *I* certainly have not made the "assumption that the supreme court is not possibly fallible"!!! The point was not fallibility, but reality. There have been a number of wild statements made as to what is or is not constitutional. Despite all the theorizing, the reality is that the Supreme Court decides what is and what is not constitutional. A person who insists on a viewpoint the Supreme Court has already considered and rejected is in the same position as those who attempt to debate what constitutes "legal money." Although the courts have declared the question to be resolved (and all challenges to the decision "frivolous"), people still claim they don't have to pay taxes because the Constitution requires that all money be gold and silver. Those who stake their positions on such claims are in for some big surprises! The courts routinely reject such claims without hearing the case. Oftentimes, a large fine and/or a jail sentence is meted out for contempt of court. > . . . A judge, > be (s)he human or otherwise will never be able to embody a platonic ideal > of "justice". You can place your faith in kings and elected judges - I > suspect the driving force that was originally behind America did NOT. The Founding Fathers were steeped in the philosophy of the Reformation, which taught that man was by nature sinful and in need of a Savior. From that philosophical base flowed the checks and balances that are built into our system of government -- it was obvious to the writers of the Constitution that no human institution could be perfect, so each part of the government must be reined in by the other parts. The courts check the excesses of the legislative and judicial branches, and are in turn checked by them. Like the majority of the Founding Fathers, I realize that man is by nature sinful and in need of a Savior (I can see this need in my own life!). When I came to this realization, I embraced Jesus Christ as my Savior. His presence in my life freed me from slavery to my own sin, and gave me a proper perspective of that which goes on around me. There are two primary components of that view: 1. All men, no matter how well-intentioned, are fallible. (This is true both for those who are born again and for those who spurn the name of Jesus.) Thus, it is important that checks and balances be in place whenever men hold positions of authority. 2. Because we are all fallible, we have a tendency to fantasize about what should be, rather than recognize what is. In order to fulfill our duty to God (worship of God and service of man), we must be in touch with reality. If we deny the reality of God, we will not worship Him. If we deny the reality of (e.g.) hunger, we will not help those who are hungry. Because I have no illusions about "kings and elected [or appointed] judges," I do not expect perfection from them. Because I am in touch with reality (rather than enraptured with theory), I understand that in the United States today, the Supreme Court defines that which is constitutional and that which is unconstitutional. > You have confused POWER with justice. The government can do what it > wants to its people because it CAN. Don't be so STUPID as to argue that > the fact that a branch of the government authorized another branch of > the government to rape its people's privacy makes it RIGHT ! No, I haven't "confused POWER with justice"!!! What I have been doing, instead, is proposing the (apparently novel!) view that reality is important. The *reality* is that the Supreme Court has decided that such things are constitutional. To change that decision will almost certainly require electing a number of people to high office that are committed to changing the composition of the Supreme Court and/or changing the Constitution. None but the naive believe that that which is legal is automatically that which is right. . . > If they think you're crude, go technical; if they think you're technical, > go crude. I'm a very technical boy. So I get as crude as possible. . . . Let's try to avoid the crude, OK? Steve Rice ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- new: stever@videovax.tv.Tek.com old: {decvax | hplabs | ihnp4 | uw-beaver}!tektronix!videovax!stever
jmm@thoth16.berkeley.edu.BERKELEY.EDU (10/20/87)
In article <4623@videovax.Tek.COM> stever@videovax.Tek.COM (Steven E. Rice, P.E.) writes: >In article <5416@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, James Moore >(jmm@thoth16.berkeley.edu.BERKELEY.EDU) writes: >> Even more important is that I have the right to say whatever >> I want to to whomever I wish without any hint of government interference. >A novel idea! Not one that is supported by the Constitution or the law, >however. . . >You do not have the right to say or print falsehoods about others >("slander" and "libel," respectively). You do not have the right to ... > > Steve Rice >new: stever@videovax.tv.Tek.com >old: {decvax | hplabs | ihnp4 | uw-beaver | cae780}!tektronix!videovax!stever Your point is valid - let me correct what I posted initially. I can say whatever I want to. Once I have said it, I am responsible for my statements, and if if it decided in court that I violated laws regarding libel, endangering public safety by screaming 'fire,' or telling the Soviets the exact location of every vitally important widget in the US Navy, then I can be fined or jailed. HOWEVER, none of this gives the government the right to listen to my private phone conversations (inside or outside the United States - I am aware of the court's decision and I think it is wrong) before a suspicion of guilt has been established and a warrant issued by a court. James Moore James Moore ...!ucbvax!leggatt!jmm "Ocus ba hairi no fertha leu acht cluchi ocus cheti ocus anius ocus aibinnius ocus longad ocus tomailt, conid de sin atat na trenae samna sechnon na hErend." -as an sceal _Seirgligi Con Culaind inso sis ocus oenet Emire_ James Moore ..!ucbvax!leggatt!jmm "Ocus ba hairi no fertha leu acht cluchi ocus cheti ocus anius ocus aibinnius ocus longad ocus tomailt, conid de sin atat na trenae samna sechnon na hErend." -as an sceal _Seirgligi Con Culaind inso sis ocus oenet Emire_
rancke@diku.UUCP (Hans Rancke-Madsen.) (10/20/87)
In article <471@auscso.UUCP> johnm@auscso.UUCP (John B. Meaders) writes: > Please direct all flames to >/dev/null because if you aren't willing to give up something for freedom, >I don't want to here from you. Or in other words: "If you don't agree with me, I don't want to hear from you!" ? :-) Hans Rancke, University of Copenhagen ..mcvax!diku!rancke --=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- - I hate it when people call me paranoid. It makes me feel persecuted.
fulk@cs.rochester.edu (Mark Fulk) (10/21/87)
>The Founding Fathers were steeped in the philosophy of the Reformation, >which taught that man was by nature sinful and in need of a Savior. ... >Like the majority of the Founding Fathers, I realize that man is by >nature sinful and in need of a Savior... and so forth. This is simply false. The philosophy of the ``Founding Fathers'' was that of the Enlightenment; they read and approved of Voltaire, Rousseau, and Locke. I don't know who your list of founding fathers is, but I think that Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, Madison, Paine, and John Adams must figure prominently. Madison, in particular, was one of the main creators of the system of checks and balances. None of these people believed in a personal god, original sin, the divinity of Christ, or a need for salvation. In fact, one of the primary motivations for the creation of the Constitution was a belief in the ultimate perfectability of humankind and its institutions. For a thorough review of the beliefs of the people that started this country going, I suggest you go directly to their letters, to the Federalist papers, to Franklin's writings on religion and science, and to Thomas Paine's pamphlets. The founders, rather than espousing original sin and salvation, evinced considerable contempt for the standard forms of Christian religion. This fact, and the great eloquence that some of the founders brought to the issue, has caused such discomfort to the preachers that they have finally taken refuge in lies about the past.
johnm@auscso.UUCP (John B. Meaders) (10/22/87)
I don't care if you disagree with me; you are welcome to your own opinion.
When I say flame, I mean attacks on me personally or similar responses.
--
John B. Meaders, Jr. 1114 Camino La Costa #3083, Austin, TX 78752
ATT: Voice: +1 (512) 451-5038 Data: +1 (512) 371-0550
UUCP: ...!ut-ngp!auscso!jclyde!john
\johnmstever@videovax.UUCP (10/23/87)
In article <5534@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, James Moore (jmm@thoth16.berkeley.edu.BERKELEY.EDU) writes: [ quotes and such deleted ] > I can say whatever I want to. Once I have said it, I am responsible > for my statements, and if if it decided in court that I violated laws > regarding libel, endangering public safety by screaming 'fire,' or > telling the Soviets the exact location of every vitally important > widget in the US Navy, then I can be fined or jailed. HOWEVER, none > of this gives the government the right to listen to my private phone > conversations (inside or outside the United States - I am aware of the > court's decision and I think it is wrong) before a suspicion of guilt > has been established and a warrant issued by a court. Three misconceptions here, at least: 1. That disagreement with a court decision affects the validity of the decision. 2. That the government must wait for overt signs that a crime has been or is being committed before taking action. 3. That any one of us on the net (or elsewhere) has the ability to decide that "none of this gives the government the right to listen to my private phone conversations . . ." The first misconception is prevalent, but obviously wrong. After all, burglars clearly disagree with court decisions upholding burglary statutes. But burglars are convicted and imprisoned daily, nonetheless. The second misconception is also clearly not true. The recent trials of numerous Mafia bosses were based in large part on evidence gained by wiretaps. And those wiretaps were permitted by the courts because a much weaker standard of proof had been met than would be required at a trial. Basically, the warrants were issued because there was reason to believe that a crime might have been committed, or was about to be committed. Like the first and second misconceptions, the third is also clearly not true. Our system, as it is presently constituted, places the Supreme Court in the position of final arbiter of what is and what is not constitutional. It turns out that having a final arbiter is essential -- otherwise, we would have unending standoffs between factions divided over every conceivable issue. Do you believe that the paper dollars you use are "legal money"? Well, there is a contingent that does not, and argues that because the money we are using is not gold or silver (and therefore "not constitutional"), they don't have to pay taxes. (Are you willing to abide by their refusal to pay taxes, thereby increasing your own?) The Supreme Court has already spoken to this issue, rejecting the argument that our money is "unconstitutional". Those who disagree must still pay taxes. Similarly, there is a contingent that believes that the government does not have the right to listen to phone conversations, etc. The point that needs to be understood is that this is true *only if the Supreme Court agrees*! If the Supreme Court says that the government has the right, then it does have the right!!! Our Constitution is a marvelous instrument for protecting our freedoms. However, the Constitution applies to everyday life precisely and only as it is interpreted by the nine Justices of the Supreme Court. If you disagree with the Court's interpretations, you can: 1. Initiate a court case involving the issue in question, and ask the Supreme Court to reverse itself. 2. Ask the President to appoint Justices who agree with you (when and if he gets the opportunity). 3. Ask the Congress to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in the area(s) you are concerned about. 4. Ask the Congress to remove (by impeachment) the Justices who have been in the majority on decisions you disapprove of. 5. Ask the Congress to initiate a Constitutional Amendment embodying changes that will produce the results you desire. 6. Ask the States to petition for a Constitutional Convention (the legislatures of 38 states will have to pass a resolution requesting that such a convention be convened). Reality is sometimes a bit uncomfortable to accept, but it is better to face unpleasant realities than to live in a dream world! All else is just tilting at windmills. Steve Rice ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- new: stever@videovax.tv.Tek.com old: {decvax | hplabs | ihnp4 | uw-beaver}!tektronix!videovax!stever
rab@well.UUCP (Bob Bickford) (10/24/87)
[Line Eater? WHAT line ea
Steve Rice writes at length about and against various arguments which
have been put forth here essentially saying that the government does
not have the right to invade people's privacy (by listening in or
intercepting their phone calls or communications). Steve says in
essence that since the Supreme Court has said that they DO have the
right, then they in fact have it.
This is wrongheaded, but I don't think it's really Steve's fault.
Steve's position amounts to saying that since the government has
the ability to enforce it's seizure of certain powers which in fact
it does not have under our Constitution, then we shouldn't argue with
it on these points. This is a fine pragmatic position.
The Supreme Court has been wrong on numerous occasions, and has often
decided cases for political expediency rather than from any legitimate
reading of the Constitution. Where these decisions have proven exceedingly
bad, they have in general been reversed. Many others have not.
The tax protestor issue he brings up is old and complicated, and is
flawed but not for the reasons that Steve indicates. Howevere, happily
the two issues are quite independent and seperable. The decisions of
the Supreme Court which sanctified paper money ARE, in fact, repugnant
to the Constitution and anybody who has bothered to study the debates
of the Founders would be well aware of this. They most determinedly
meant to "crush paper money" and the papers of the time acknowledged
this fact with great joy.
Please don't confuse the ability to exercise a power with the right
to exercise that power. Our government is doing today, and has been
virtually from the beginning of its history, many things which it is
not authorized to do by the Constitution (and, in a few areas, is
actually doing things which are prohibited by that document). If
most people feel that the government SHOULD be doing these things,
then they should get an Amendment passed. Sneaking them in under
the guise of 'interpreting' the Constitution is foul play.
--
Robert Bickford {hplabs, ucbvax, lll-lcc, ptsfa}!well!rab
/-------------------------------------v-------------------------------------\
| Don't Blame Me: I Voted Libertarian | Ron Paul: Libertarian for President |
\-------------------------------------^-------------------------------------/ljz@fxgrp.UUCP (Lloyd Zusman) (10/25/87)
In article <4288@well.UUCP> rab@well.UUCP (Bob Bickford) writes: >Steve Rice writes at length about and against various arguments which >have been put forth here essentially saying that the government does >not have the right to invade people's privacy (by listening in or >intercepting their phone calls or communications). Steve says in >essence that since the Supreme Court has said that they DO have the >right, then they in fact have it. etc. etc. ... I believe that it's a moot point as to whether any governmental agency or institution has the "right" to invade my privacy (or to do anything else, for that matter). Some people will say it does, some will say it doesn't, and we can go on and on splitting hairs about the "true" meaning of the word "right" and as we do this, there are forces at work undermining our privacy and freedom. My opinion is that I do not want the government of anyone else to invade my privacy, and whether they have the "right" to do it or not, I want to encourage everyone to strenuously oppose any efforts on the part of the gov't to do this. There are all sorts of pressure that can be brought to bear to severely reduce the government's intrusiveness: political, legal, free-market, media, etc. etc. I say we stop quibbling about whether it's a "right" or not and just get out there and fight for our privacy. By the way, this isn't directed at you, Bob ... it's just that your posting inspired me. I think we're basically in agreement. -- Lloyd Zusman, Master Byte Software, Los Gatos, California "When your software gets hard, go Master Byte." ...!ames!fxgrp!ljz
jmm@thoth16.berkeley.edu.BERKELEY.EDU (10/27/87)
In article <4639@videovax.Tek.COM> stever@videovax.Tek.COM (Steven E. Rice, P.E.) writes: >If the Supreme Court says that the government has the >right, then it does have the right!!! >Reality is sometimes a bit uncomfortable to accept, but it is better to >face unpleasant realities than to live in a dream world! All else is >just tilting at windmills. > > Steve Rice > >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >new: stever@videovax.tv.Tek.com >old: {decvax | hplabs | ihnp4 | uw-beaver}!tektronix!videovax!stever If the Supreme Court says the government has the right to do something, then that means that the government legally has the power to do it. That does not mean that I have to accept that as being "right." For many years it was "right" for blacks and women not having the right to vote and for people to be kept in slavery (add your favorite injustice to the list ...). I think it would be hard to make a case for either of these situations being "right." I disagree about your tiliting at windmills concept. Sometimes changes can be caused by the destruction of several lances used against the appropriate milling machine. What you think of as immutable might not exist tomorrow. James Moore ..!ucbvax!leggatt!jmm "Ocus ba hairi no fertha leu acht cluchi ocus cheti ocus anius ocus aibinnius ocus longad ocus tomailt, conid de sin atat na trenae samna sechnon na hErend." -as an sceal _Seirgligi Con Culaind inso sis ocus oenet Emire_
stever@videovax.UUCP (10/28/87)
In article <3453@sol.ARPA>, Mark Fulk (fulk@cs.rochester.edu) writes: > . . . The philosophy of the ``Founding Fathers'' was that > of the Enlightenment; they read and approved of Voltaire, Rousseau, and > Locke. . . . In fact, one of the primary motivations for the creation > of the Constitution was a belief in the ultimate perfectability of > humankind and its institutions. . . . Unfortunately, Mark seems to be a victim of revisionist history. There is no historical justification for his statements. (I composed a reply which has all the details, but it doesn't belong on sci.crypt. Send me mail if you want a copy.) There is something that needs to be said on sci.crypt, however, as it has a direct bearing on the periodic rash of messages that proclaim "it isn't constitutional for the government to listen to my phone." The Founding Fathers held that God endows us with our rights: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. On the other hand, many today would agree with Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (1841-1935), who wrote: I see no reason for attributing to man a significance different in kind from that which belongs to a baboon or a grain of sand. Holmes also said, "The Constitution is what the judges say it is." His view was later echoed by Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, who said, "It is they [the Supreme Court justices] who speak and not the Constitution." If we have a significance equal to that of a baboon or a grain of sand, then certainly a Supreme Court that follows the lead of Holmes and Frankfurter will permit our phones to be wiretapped. And it's completely constitutional (Holmes said so. . .). Steve Rice ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- new: stever@videovax.tv.Tek.com old: {decvax | hplabs | ihnp4 | uw-beaver}!tektronix!videovax!stever
stever@videovax.UUCP (10/28/87)
In article <4288@well.UUCP>, Bob Bickford (rab@well.UUCP) writes: > . . . > Steve's position amounts to saying that since the government has > the ability to enforce it's seizure of certain powers which in fact > it does not have under our Constitution, then we shouldn't argue with > it on these points. This is a fine pragmatic position. Only half of this is my position. I'm not suggesting we should't try to change the situation. I am suggesting that sitting around whining that "it isn't constitutional" is not reasonable behavior. Until we alter the composition of the Supreme Court enough to change its collective mind on the issue, or pass an amendment to the Constitution that prevents the Court from ruling against us, we are stuck. To re-emphasize my point, the behavior in question is constitutional if the Supreme Court says it is. The only way to fix the problem is to fix the Court or to fix the Constitution (or both). Steve Rice ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- new: stever@videovax.tv.Tek.com old: {decvax | hplabs | ihnp4 | uw-beaver}!tektronix!videovax!stever
robert@uop.UUCP (10/30/87)
unfortunatley the supreme court is not the law, it is subject to the constitution. however, we have rather foolishly let this alternate branch of control grow into a dictatorship, which "interprets" the constitution for us. this is dangerous. very dangerous.