🚀 go-pugleaf

Message-ID: <1992Nov2.162206.12746@ulysses.att.com> (Steven Bellovin)

>In article <715.517.uupcb@grapevine.lrk.ar.us>
>
>>WITH EVICTION DEMANDED... {From: atkinson@itd.nrl.navy.mil}
>>[Please note the '.nrl.navy.mil' above. I didn't realize until now that the
>>Naval Research Laboratory moderated the cryptology conference... did you?]

>With the implication that therefore the military controls the discussions
>about cryptology?  Spare me.  If nothing else, they're not that stupid.

>I'm certainly not saying that the U.S. government doesn't try to suppress
>some cryptographic ideas -- obviously, they do -- but that isn't one
>of their mechanisms.

Oh, I totally agree.  That was merely my comment to an observation I made when
copying his address.  There were no deep implications intended however I can
easily see how you arrived at one.  I don't even know whether NRL is involved
in message encryption.  Since they are a research lab that I have known about
for many many years, I would be inclined to think they would have minimal
involvement with cryptography but I could easily be mistaken.

Actually I would like to see more two way involvement on the part of our
government in this discussion area.  I think that their input could be made in
such a manner that no secrets were given away.  All too often many of the
government agencies like the ones being discussed in this newsgroup act like
one way trap doors, everything in and nothing out.  I can fully appreciate
both the need and strategy of this position from their point of view.  However
I sometimes tend to get the impression that many such agencies are somewhat
abnormally paranoid in this regard.  This is ashame.

Theoretically this is wrong also.  If you've ever read any of Wiener's books
on Cybernetics or know about the theory of control, any machine or organism
derives its control through the use of feedback mechanisms.  I'm fully
convinced and have been for years that one of the reasons that 'surprises'
(implications expected at this point) happen in various government agencies is
that such a feedback mechanism does not exist.  Just look at the recent
discussion of the hearings in the Congress in which the CIA (I believe)
thought they were above giving out any communications about certain activities
and hence Congress, who should have been the control mechanism, was unable to
exercise their proper control function.  I'll even go so far as to say that if
you show me any agency of government that thwarts feedback (to the proper
controlling entity) such that cybernetic principles are not able to be applied
is an agency that should be investigated by the government itself.

I have the sneaking suspicion that many of the government agencies feel that
they know exactly what opinions the rest of us have and hence they have no
reason to do any feedback.  Perhaps they even regard this message as just so
much noise with no signal contained therein.  I don't know.  But I think that
from even a purely public relations aspect that it would even enhance many
agencies' image if they would participate more in discussions like this.  As
long as the participants in such discussion would not flame I sincerely
believe that something good can result for all parties.  I think that the
participation in some of these discussions by Professor Denning demonstrates
this.  At least one gets the feeling that their thoughts and opinions are
heard unlike the tree that falls in the forest and (produces|does not produce)
sound.

Wouldn't it be great is someday a message came across this channel that said,
"My name is Sergeant O'Malley and the NSA has authorized me to answer some of
your questions concerning public key cryptography provided that neither the
question or answer affects U.S. security concerns."  They may ignore
everything being said but wouldn't that be great for everyone on this
newsgroup?  Especially today when so many people have great mistrust of our
government as has been shown through repeated polls.

In article <1992Nov2.084229.1@zodiac.rutgers.edu> (Jerry Leichter) it states:

"When people think of crime, they think of the little guy with a gun holding
up a liquor store.  No need for sophisticated investigation here.  But the
BIG crimes, the ones that involve huge amounts of money, the ones that hurt
large numbers of people at a time, are white collar crimes.  Fake insurance
companies.  Stock frauds.  All kinds of scams.  Prosecuting such cases is
impossible without a "paper trail".  Crime on a large scale, like any other
enterprise on a large scale, requires record keeping, and it is those records
that, when seized, form the evidence.  In a world where those records are all
encrypted, and no one is under any obligation to reveal what the keys are,
prosecution, even detection, of such crimes would be just about impossible."

I think there is a very fine line to be drawn between the objectives of
various government agencies and the right of privacy as applied to American
citizens.  As I have stated before, some sort of guidelines would be useful
from all concerned.  I desire "reasonable" privacy for myself but also desire
that law enforcement objectives are fulfilled.  I want that 'line in the sand'
which I know that I must stay on one side of.  I think many others agree with
me on this point.

nuf said...  Thanks for finding only one hole in my message!
---
 . SM 1.06 ----- . Email: john.eichler@grapevine.lrk.ar.us