Tech Insider					     Technology and Trends


			      USENET Archives

Path: gmdzi!unido!mcvax!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!
ucbvax!hoptoad!gnu
From: gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Merkle's "A Software Encryption Function" now published and available
Message-ID: <7981@hoptoad.uucp>
Date: 13 Jul 89 10:10:11 GMT
Organization: Grasshopper Group in San Francisco
Lines: 55
Posted: Thu Jul 13 11:10:11 1989

Ralph Merkle called me today to let me know that Xerox was not going to
let him submit his paper on a nice new set of encryption and hash functions
to a journal for publication.  The story is that a division of Xerox
sells a lot of stuff to NSA and they threatened to pull their business
if Xerox publishes it.  There is no law that says NSA can stop Xerox
from publishing it -- it's just a "business decision" on Xerox's part.

Happily, however, I do not sell anything to the NSA.  And I have
a copy of the paper, which was distributed for several months
by Xerox, without any conditions, before NSA even heard of it.
The work was not government-sponsored or classified; there is no
law that lets the government suppress it.

As a courtesy to Xerox Corporation I could avoid publishing this
paper.  However, I prefer to extend the courtesy to the person who did
the work, Ralph Merkle, who would like to see it released and used.  I
do thank Xerox for supporting his excellent work and hope that they
will continue to do so.  Mr. Merkle did not ask or suggest that I
publish the paper, and should bear none of the blame (if any).

I have published and distributed a number of copies of this paper, and
I hereby offer to sell a copy of this paper to anyone who sends me $10
(cash preferred, checks accepted) and a return address.  Send your requests to:

	Merkle Paper Publishing
	PO Box 170608
	San Francisco, CA, USA  94117-0608

Since the paper is "published and is generally available to the public
through subscriptions which are available without restriction to any
individual who desires to obtain or purchase the published
information", it is exempt from State Department export control under
22 CFR 120.18 and 22 CFR 125.1 (a), and is exportable to all
destintions under Commerce Department General License GTDA under 15 CFR
379.3(a).  It can therefore be sent to foreign as well as US domestic
individuals.

I believe that the availability of fast, secure cryptography to the
worldwide public will enable us to build much more secure computer
systems and networks, increasing individual privacy as well as making
viruses and worms much harder to write.  For example, the Snefru
one-way hash function described in the paper would be a good choice for
validating copies of programs downloaded from BBS systems or the net,
to detect virus contamination.  If UUCP and TCP/IP links could be
encrypted with Mr. Merkle's Khafre or Khufu ciphers, simple monitoring
of phone wires or Ethernets would not yield login passwords, private
mail, and other serious security violations.  The technology exists;
all that stands in our way is a bureacracy that has no *legal* power
to restrict us, if we follow the published rules.

	John Gilmore
-- 
John Gilmore      {sun,pacbell,uunet,pyramid}!hoptoad!gnu      g...@toad.com
      "And if there's danger don't you try to overlook it,
       Because you knew the job was dangerous when you took it"

Path: gmdzi!unido!mcvax!uunet!lll-winken!arisia!merkle
From: mer...@arisia.Xerox.COM (Ralph Merkle)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: John Gilmore's distribution of my paper
Message-ID: <1638@arisia.Xerox.COM>
Date: 14 Jul 89 00:07:52 GMT
References: <7981@hoptoad.uucp>
Reply-To: mer...@xerox.com (Ralph C. Merkle)
Organization: Xerox Palo Alto Research Center
Lines: 11
Posted: Fri Jul 14 01:07:52 1989

I was surprised to read John Gilmore's mail on sci.crypt, and find it 
rather embarrassing.  Xerox PARC has supported my research and provided 
an environment that offers an unparalleled freedom to pursue ideas that 
are interesting and new.  How best to use those ideas in a commercial 
setting is a decision that is and should be made by Xerox.  The decision 
by Xerox to defer publication of a portion of my work is one that I both 
understand and fully support.

I should add that at no point has NSA said or suggested that there would 
be an adverse affect on Xerox should Xerox pursue publication.

This paper was distributed several months ago by me, with Xerox' permission, 
to a few colleagues for comments.  It is a draft, so the ideas and concepts 
expressed in it are untested and unproven.

I wish John had not sent out copies of this draft.  I would ask that it 
receive no further distribution at this time.

     Ralph C. Merkle
     mer...@xerox.com

Path: gmdzi!unido!mcvax!uunet!ginosko!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!
tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!attctc!sampson
From: sam...@attctc.DALLAS.TX.US (Steve Sampson)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: John Gilmore's distribution of my paper
Message-ID: <8660@attctc.DALLAS.TX.US>
Date: 15 Jul 89 08:30:17 GMT
References: <7981@hoptoad.uucp> <1638@arisia.Xerox.COM>
Organization: The Unix(R) Connection, Dallas, Texas
Lines: 3
Posted: Sat Jul 15 09:30:17 1989


I thought the statements concerning the NSA sounded fishy.  Why do people
hate this organization?  The good must surely outweigh the bad?

Path: gmdzi!unido!mcvax!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!
rutgers!att!ulysses!andante!alice!dmr
From: dmr@alice.UUCP
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: John Gilmore's distribution of my paper
Message-ID: <9621@alice.UUCP>
Date: 17 Jul 89 03:10:02 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill NJ
Lines: 14
Posted: Mon Jul 17 04:10:02 1989

Gilmore published Merkle's paper on the net without Merkle's permission,
and also offered to sell it.  Gilmore offered unfounded speculation
about NSA's role in the decision by Merkle and his employer about
how, and when, to make Merkle's draft available to the public.

Merkle expressed embarrassment and annoyance about Gilmore's
actions, and denied NSA pressure on Xerox's business.

I find it disheartening that all subsequent discussion should focus
on NSA, instead of the injury that Gilmore has evidently done
to Merkle.  I have been in situations faintly resembling this,
and I felt a real sense of betrayal.

	Dennis Ritchie

Path: gmdzi!unido!mcvax!uunet!ginosko!ctrsol!cica!iuvax!purdue!
tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!attctc!sampson
From: sam...@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Steve Sampson)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: John Gilmore's distribution of my paper
Message-ID: <8692@attctc.Dallas.TX.US>
Date: 17 Jul 89 23:40:28 GMT
References: <9621@alice.UUCP>
Organization: The Unix(R) Connection, Dallas, Texas
Lines: 11
Posted: Tue Jul 18 00:40:28 1989


dmr (Ritchie) recently discussed his dismay and lack of resentment towards
Gilmore.  I didn't say anything because I was too ignorant to know how this
sort of thing was tolerated; no matter how much it really angered me.  I'm
sorry to say I remained quite and did nothing.  I'll not let that happen
(or strive to) again.  Thanks for being so blunt dmr.  I do find it 
absolutely childish the discussion of the NSA being equal to the boogie-man
and the paranoid statements made.  Time to turn the discussion around to
either discussing the research and idea, rather than the idea of someone
coming to get you, or fear of such.  I know how the inventor of the computer
felt now when someone published Von Neumans draft.

Path: gmdzi!unido!mcvax!uunet!ginosko!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!
tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!hplabs!well!gors
From: gors@well.UUCP (Gordon Stewart)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: John Gilmore's distribution of my paper
Message-ID: <12744@well.UUCP>
Date: 18 Jul 89 01:52:32 GMT
References: <7981@hoptoad.uucp> <1638@arisia.Xerox.COM> 
<8660@attctc.DALLAS.TX.US>
Reply-To: gors@well.UUCP (Gordon Stewart)
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA
Lines: 45
Posted: Tue Jul 18 02:52:32 1989


	In article <86...@attctc.DALLAS.TX.US>
	sam...@attctc.DALLAS.TX.US (Steve Sampson) writes:  
	> I thought the statements concerning the NSA sounded fishy.  Why
	> do people hate this organization?  The good must surely
	> outweigh the bad?

Your morals and/or reasoning must be sadly lax.  That nefarious bunch
of well-meaning spooks have a budget that isn't subject to the same
scrutiny as school lunches, eavesdrop on (net e-mail, unprotected by
mail privacy law?) private conversations without court-ordered
wiretaps, and actively suppress publication of research -- and harrass
and intimidate when men and women of conscience disagree.

The NSA was indubitably the agent responsible, ultimately, for the
suppression of the theoretical foundation of the S-boxes in the DES
cipher -- and, did you know, more supercomputer power is brought to
bear on cryptanalysis than any other single use?!  Can you not 
imagine any other uses for this analytic horsepower?

Anyway, even if this were for some "greater good", some "noble cause",
or some "good war", their practices are not wholly consistent with the
practice and principles of LIBERTY!

Who spies on the spies?

Can you point to a single benefit to the American people as a whole,
rather than some particular interest (Pentagon, Defense Contractors,
Intelligence Community, etc), that is the direct result of the NSA? Yet
you are strangely confident that the good must outweigh the bad?

I recall a sermon once, by an old preacher -- he was railing about sin,
and human character -- he was trying to explain the significance of
violating one's own precepts:

	"It won't do to say the bad is balanced by, or even
	surpassed by the good.  Remember 'Rough on Rats', the
	famous rat poison. It's 99% pure grain. What do you think
	kills the rats?"


-- 
				{apple, pacbell, hplabs, ucbvax}!well!gors
							go...@well.sf.ca.us
(Doolan) | (Meyer) | (Sierchio) | (Stewart)

Path: gmdzi!unido!mcvax!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!texsun!pollux!
attctc!sampson
From: sam...@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Steve Sampson)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: John Gilmore's distribution of my paper
Message-ID: <8704@attctc.Dallas.TX.US>
Date: 18 Jul 89 17:37:56 GMT
References: <7981@hoptoad.uucp> <1638@arisia.Xerox.COM> 
<8660@attctc.DALLAS.TX.US> <12744@well.UUCP>
Organization: The Unix(R) Connection, Dallas, Texas
Lines: 68
Posted: Tue Jul 18 18:37:56 1989

In article <12744@well.UUCP>, gors@well.UUCP (Gordon Stewart) writes:
> 
> Your morals and/or reasoning must be sadly lax.
Yes, probably so...

> That nefarious [evil] bunch of well-meaning spooks ... who actively suppress
> publication of research -- and harass and intimidate when men and women of
> conscience disagree.

You evidently have never served your country in any way or ventured across the
border.  (Canada doesn't count, even if draft dodging).  I find that men and
women who lean on their conscience are usually not willing to protect
themselves or others.  They usually turn out to be cowards, frozen by fear.

> The NSA was indubitably ...
Is this the same as convicted?  I can't find my dictionary.

> -- and, did you know, more supercomputer power is brought to bear on
> cryptanalysis than any other single use?!  Can you not imagine any other
> uses for this analytic horsepower?

Gosh really? I can't imagine!

> Anyway, even if this were for some "greater good", some "noble cause",
> or some "good war", their practices are not wholly consistent with the
> practice and principles of LIBERTY! Can you point to a single benefit to
> the American people as a whole, rather than some particular interest
> (Pentagon, Defense Contractors, Intelligence Community, etc), that is the
> direct result of the NSA?  Yet you are strangely confident that the good
> must outweigh the bad?

Scenario:  Agents or instruments of country X are planning to kill you and
your family because you supported or were involved in military action,
diplomatic action etc.  You do not personally have the means to protect
yourself and your family against a state unless you intend to hide out for the
rest of your life.  Let's say this is perceived by you to be an idle threat.
A month later your family is found dead with parts of their bodies left on the
lawn, and some parts missing.  They say that you will get these missing parts
with a public statement condemning the US and its policies.

Question:  Would you rather have this country or people identified and the
proposed action stopped, possibly due to the threat of our miltary or
diplomatic retaliations?

Possible Answer:  I don't think any government agency should protect and
defend my freedoms or liberties.  If a person crosses the border, it's their
own damn fault.

Now I'm not saying that our government agencies have this capability.  I like
to think they do, but nothing is guaranteed I suppose.  I know that there are
many Americans who would have us isolate ourselves from the rest of the world.
But many of these same people think we can continue with the same life-style
having done that.  The majority I believe, want us to be members of the world
and that takes not only a will, but a capability.  I am convinced we could not
be capable without organizations like this.  Are you willing to be confined to
your national borders?  Would you like to have friends or become friends with
other countries?  Say for mutual trade, etc.  Some countries do not like us,
or more important our system of freedom and liberty.  This is bad news in a
Dictatorship or Communist country.  When these freedom freaks start making
friends with countries next to their borders they tend to provide the same
country with a test of their real willingness (war, insurgency, assassination
etc).

> I recall a sermon once, by an old preacher -- 
Well at least you believe in one organization!

Sorry for putting this in a science forum, but I was addressed here, I'll
refrain from further comment.

Path: gmdzi!unido!mcvax!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!well!gors
From: gors@well.UUCP (Gordon Stewart)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: John Gilmore's distribution of my paper
Message-ID: <12759@well.UUCP>
Date: 19 Jul 89 04:06:10 GMT
References: <9621@alice.UUCP>
Reply-To: gors@well.UUCP (Gordon Stewart)
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA
Lines: 40
Posted: Wed Jul 19 05:06:10 1989

In article <9621@alice.UUCP> dmr@alice.UUCP (Dennis Ritchie) writes:

	Gilmore published Merkle's paper on the net without Merkle's
	permission, and also offered to sell it.  Gilmore offered
	unfounded speculation about NSA's role in the decision by
	Merkle and his employer about how, and when, to make Merkle's
	draft available to the public.

	I find it disheartening that all subsequent discussion should
	focus on NSA, instead of the injury that Gilmore has evidently
	done to Merkle.  I have been in situations faintly resembling
	this, and I felt a real sense of betrayal.


I understand that John may have violated a prerogative -- one apparently
belonging to Xerox, though, and not Merkle. What is more, I agree that
a betrayal has occurred -- not a personal betrayal of Merkle by Gilmore,
but a betrayal of the ideals of research, "the life of the mind", etc,
etc by the proprietary interests of a few in research that may have such
far-reaching effects!

While it may seem to be a transparent rationalization, to invoke the
NSA in the dissemination of Merkle's work is not inappropriate.  I
do not believe that his assertion about the NSA's role is unfounded --
there is ample evidence that they have acted to suppress such results
in the past.

Whatever John Gilmore's private motives, I must applaud the act -- with
apologies to Merkle.  I know how it is to have one's art scrutinized
before one thinks it is ready.  Perhaps, though, the discussion may now
turn to the merits of the work itself, rather than the act of propagating
it????

m sierchio


-- 
				{apple, pacbell, hplabs, ucbvax}!well!gors
							go...@well.sf.ca.us
(Doolan) | (Meyer) | (Sierchio) | (Stewart)

Path: gmdzi!unido!mcvax!uunet!ginosko!xanth!ames!apple!well!gors
From: gors@well.UUCP (Gordon Stewart)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: John Gilmore's distribution of my paper
Message-ID: <12765@well.UUCP>
Date: 19 Jul 89 16:25:07 GMT
References: <7981@hoptoad.uucp> <1638@arisia.Xerox.COM> 
<8660@attctc.DALLAS.TX.US> <12744@well.UUCP> <8704@attctc.Dallas.TX.US>
Reply-To: gors@well.UUCP (Gordon Stewart)
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA
Lines: 26
Posted: Wed Jul 19 17:25:07 1989

In article <87...@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> sam...@attctc.Dallas.TX.US 
(Steve Sampson) writes:
>
>You evidently have never served your country in any way or ventured across the
>border.  (Canada doesn't count, even if draft dodging).  I find that men and
>women who lean on their conscience are usually not willing to protect
>themselves or others.  They usually turn out to be cowards, frozen by fear.
>

Actually, for your information, I have served my country and have crossed
many borders.  Amphibious Ready Rescue Group "Bravo", stationed in
Danang. Two purple hearts (courtesy of USMC). Impressed now?

You're invoking the notions of "defense" and "self-defense" -- of course,
it is a matter of conscience to defend what one thinks is worthy, 
since it may incur some cost.  Unfortunately, spooks are usually
bureaucrats, and make a practice of justifying their activities by
invoking symbolic issues like NATIONAL DEFENSE, etc etc.

The end not only doesn't justify the means -- the means have  their
own ends.  Americans of Japanese ancestry can tell you all about it.

-- 
				{apple, pacbell, hplabs, ucbvax}!well!gors
							go...@well.sf.ca.us
(Doolan) | (Meyer) | (Sierchio) | (Stewart)

Path: gmdzi!unido!mcvax!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!
paul.rutgers.edu!jac
From: j...@paul.rutgers.edu (Jonathan A. Chandross)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: John Gilmore's distribution of my paper
Message-ID: <Jul.19.17.22.09.1989.24794@paul.rutgers.edu>
Date: 19 Jul 89 21:22:10 GMT
References: <9621@alice.UUCP> <12759@well.UUCP>
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 26
Posted: Wed Jul 19 22:22:10 1989

gors@well.UUCP (Gordon Stewart)
> I understand that John may have violated a prerogative -- one apparently
> belonging to Xerox, though, and not Merkle.

Wrongo.  That paper is the *property* of Xerox.  It was distributed, I
assume, with the reasonable expectation that copies and further distribution 
would not be made.  This is how working papers are generally handled.

> What is more, I agree that a betrayal has occurred ....  a betrayal of the 
> ideals of research ...  etc by the proprietary interests of a few

So I take it that you don't support the idea of intellectual property?  
How would you feel if it was a Xerox internal memo that detailed some 
trade secrets?

> I know how it is to have one's art scrutinized before one thinks it is ready.

This is not the issue.  Someone's intellectual property was stolen.  
Debating the merits of a piece of stolen property is not a moral 
action.



Jonathan A. Chandross
Internet: j...@paul.rutgers.edu
UUCP: rutgers!paul.rutgers.edu!jac

Path: gmdzi!unido!mcvax!uunet!ginosko!ctrsol!lll-winken!
csd4.milw.wisc.edu!bionet!ames!apple!well!gors
From: gors@well.UUCP (Gordon Stewart)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: John Gilmore's distribution of my paper
Message-ID: <12809@well.UUCP>
Date: 21 Jul 89 18:57:26 GMT
References: <9621@alice.UUCP> <12759@well.UUCP> 
<Jul.19.17.22.09.1989.24794@paul.rutgers.edu>
Reply-To: gors@well.UUCP (Gordon Stewart)
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA
Lines: 42
Posted: Fri Jul 21 19:57:26 1989

In article <Jul.19.17.22....@paul.rutgers.edu> j...@paul.rutgers.edu
	 (Jonathan A. Chandross) writes:

	>> This is not the issue.  Someone's intellectual property was stolen.  
	>> Debating the merits of a piece of stolen property is not a moral 
	>> action.

The ideas contained in the paper belong to the person reading it.  The
particular manner and means of expression is governed by copyright law
-- there may have been a violation of copyright, but it is unclear
whether it is actionable -- if there is no continued publishing of the
paper, probably not -- I'm sure there are attorneys at Xerox
discussing it now.

As far as trade secrets go, your only protection is:

	1) keep them secret (don't diclose to anyone); or

	2) legally bind someone via confidentiality and non-disclosure
	   agreement.

Circulation of an unpublished paper for review purposes means the
contents are no longer protected by any trade secret law, unless all
reviewers are bound by such agreements.  If such a reviewer disclosed
such confidential information, only he or she would be liable -- not
anyone he or she disclosed it to.

Gilmore may have committed a discourtesy,  but his act was not "theft".

There is also some discrepancy between Merkle's statements in his reply
and Gilmore's account of Merkle's private communication to him.  I leave
it to you to speculate what that means.






-- 
				{apple, pacbell, hplabs, ucbvax}!well!gors
							go...@well.sf.ca.us
(Doolan) | (Meyer) | (Sierchio) | (Stewart)

Path: gmdzi!unido!mcvax!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!wasatch!mailrus!
jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: John Gilmore's distribution of my paper
Message-ID: <1989Jul23.002547.25132@utzoo.uucp>
Date: 23 Jul 89 00:25:47 GMT
References: <9621@alice.UUCP> <12759@well.UUCP> 
<Jul.19.17.22.09.1989.24794@paul.rutgers.edu> <12809@well.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 17
Posted: Sun Jul 23 01:25:47 1989

In article <12809@well.UUCP> gors@well.UUCP (Gordon Stewart) writes:
>There is also some discrepancy between Merkle's statements in his reply
>and Gilmore's account of Merkle's private communication to him.  I leave
>it to you to speculate what that means.

To add further fuel to the speculation :-), a friend of mine who knows
both Gilmore and Merkle but does not want to be named as part of this war
says, roughly:  "the folks who are making all the noise don't know what
went on, and in particular do not know enough to make sensible comments
about it".

(Please do not ask *me* about it.  I know Gilmore but not Merkle, don't
have much more information about the mess than you do, and am bound to
respect my friend's wish for anonymity.)
-- 
1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry he...@zoo.toronto.edu

Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!ginosko!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!
tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!husc6!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gw...@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: John Gilmore's distribution of my paper
Message-ID: <10853@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 28 Aug 89 08:46:53 GMT
References: <7981@hoptoad.uucp> <1638@arisia.Xerox.COM> 
<8660@attctc.DALLAS.TX.US> <12744@well.UUCP> <8704@attctc.Dallas.TX.US>
Reply-To: gw...@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 28
Posted: Mon Aug 28 09:46:53 1989

In article <87...@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> 
sam...@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Steve Sampson) writes:
>In article <12744@well.UUCP>, gors@well.UUCP (Gordon Stewart) writes:
>>[omitted for brevity]
>You evidently have never served your country in any way ...
>I find that men and women who lean on their conscience are usually
>not willing to protect themselves or others.

Come now, that is uncalled for.  Argue on the merits of the case, if any.
There are veterans of the U.S. military who are quite willing to challenge
the policies and practice of agencies of the U.S. government when they
appear to be incompatible with the fundamental liberties that the U.S. was
established to preserve and protect.  (I'm one.)

>Scenario:  Agents or instruments of country X are planning to kill you ...
>Question:  Would you rather have this country or people identified and the
>proposed action stopped ...

Of course he would; that's one of the principal reasons for the existence
of the government.

It's not at all clear that government agencies need to ride rough-shod
over individual rights in order to protect them..

It happens I think NSA does a good job (or did, last time I knew for sure
what they were doing); nonetheless I would be pleased if a technological
breakthrough provided ultimate privacy of communications and put them out
of work.  You need to keep the ultimate goals straight and not get misled
by short-range ones.

Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!ginosko!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!
tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!hoptoad!gnu
From: gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Serving your country with constructive criticism of its government
Message-ID: <8415@hoptoad.uucp>
Date: 29 Aug 89 10:15:15 GMT
References: <7981@hoptoad.uucp> <1638@arisia.Xerox.COM> 
<8660@attctc.DALLAS.TX.US> <10853@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Organization: Grasshopper Group in San Francisco
Lines: 106
Posted: Tue Aug 29 11:15:15 1989

I don't want to beat this off-the-subject topic much, but it reminded
me of a book I just found, which is somewhat more on-topic.  Also, I
just got back from Crypto '89 where a few papers (particularly Ruth
Nelson and John Heimann's paper on the Secure Data Network System, an
end-to-end-secure ISO/TCP-IP design) had the same kind of BS-censorship
problems that Turner describes below.  Anyway...

Steve Sampson wrote:
> You evidently have never served your country in any way ...
Doug Gwyn responded:
> There are veterans of the U.S. military who are quite willing to challenge
> the policies and practice of agencies of the U.S. government when they
> appear to be incompatible with the fundamental liberties that the U.S. was
> established to preserve and protect.  (I'm one.)

A particularly good example of this comes from the book _Secrecy and
Democracy, the CIA in Transition_ by Admiral Stansfield Turner (former
Director of Central Intelligence), Houghton Mifflin, 1985, ISBN
0-395-35573-7.  The foreword is "Acknowledgements and a Word on
Censorship", part of which discusses:

	"...dealing with the CIA on obtaining the necessary security
	review of the book.  That review stemmed from the agreement
	that CIA employees execute to submit their writings for security
	clearance.  I estimate that between 10 and 15 percent of the time it
	took me to complete the book [24 months --gnu] was spent in
	arranging with the CIA for its clearance...It was all most
	unreasonable and unnecessary.

	"I fully support the requirement for such review.  In fact, it
	was I who urged Attorney General Griffin Bell in 1978 to
	prosecute an ex-CIA employee, Frank Snepp...[who] proceeded
	to publish...surreptitiosly.  The government won its case
	against Snepp...  My problem was just the opposite.  I
	scrupulously submitted every draft before it left my control.
	What I object to is the way the present administration conducts
	its reviews.  There are two problems:  timeliness and arbitrariness.

	"The delay...problem was that the CIA has not assigned enough
	people to the review process...
	
	"Arbitrariness stemmed from an administration policy of
	drawing the line of secrecy on the overcautious side.  Though
	that may seem to be the safest course for the country, it
	actually endangers secrets by making a mockery of the secret
	label.  Having been responsible for protecting the nation's
	intelligence secrets for four years, I am well aware what the
	release of some kinds of information could mean to our national
	security.  In the review of my book, more than one hundred
	deletions were made by the CIA.  These ranged from borderline
	issues to the ridiculous.  I appealed many of these questionable
	deletions to the higher levels of the CIA and obtained only
	three minor concessions.

	"...two requests were particularly egregious and unnecessary.
	Anthony Lapham, on my behalf, sent the CIA a letter stating
	that unless they either (1) provided me with a convincing
	reason for their position, or (2) obtained a court injunction
	against my publishing the information, I would proceed to do so.
	The CIA, after consulting with the White House and the
	Department of Justice, chose to do neither.  Instead, they
	replied that I should do whatever I deemed to be 'appropriate',
	but that the CIA reserved 'the right to take whatever action it
	deemed appropriate'.

	"This was the most irresponsible position they could possibly
	have taken.  The supposed 'secrets' were clearly of no
	importance to them, since they left it to my discretion
	whether or not to publish them.  The threat to take me to court
	after the fact could not have retrieved the secrets...Clearly
	the administration knew that a court would not have upheld a
	petition for an injunction.  Their only other recourse was to
	threaten me.

	"They resorted to this tactic because they were upset with the
	book's highly critical view of the Reagan administration's
	mishandling of our intelligence activities, especially its
	indifference to any oversight of the CIA.  The administration
	does not believe that anyone should check on whether even simple
	decisions of the CIA, such as what authors are permitted to say,
	are fair and in the public interest.  Yet our entire
	constitutional system is built on checks and balances between
	the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of our
	government.  Anthony Lapham's and my objecting in suggesting
	that the government enjoin publication was to gain the
	intercession of a third party to arbitrate the dispute, namely
	the court.  The administration's devious response was a
	deliberate effort to avoid any such check on the arbitrariness
	of the CIA's decisions.  Clearly the Reagan administration
	does not understand that oversight of intelligence in our
	society includes constructive criticism from outsiders like me."

I have not yet read the rest of the book, but it looks quite
interesting.  The introduction states that "I hope it is a book
that accurately and honestly discusses the problems which are inevitable
when an open and democratic society tries to carry out secret
intelligence operations, and indicates how complex it is to reconcile
such a society and such activities.  I am writing it for those who
want to understand these complexities and can accept tht fact that
simple solutions, even when possible, are seldom useful."

I'll post a more complete review after reading it.
-- 
John Gilmore      {sun,pacbell,uunet,pyramid}!hoptoad!gnu      g...@toad.com
Love your country but never trust its government.
		     -- from a hand-painted road sign in central Pennsylvania

			        About USENET

USENET (Users’ Network) was a bulletin board shared among many computer
systems around the world. USENET was a logical network, sitting on top
of several physical networks, among them UUCP, BLICN, BERKNET, X.25, and
the ARPANET. Sites on USENET included many universities, private companies
and research organizations. See USENET Archives.

		       SCO Files Lawsuit Against IBM

March 7, 2003 - The SCO Group filed legal action against IBM in the State 
Court of Utah for trade secrets misappropriation, tortious interference, 
unfair competition and breach of contract. The complaint alleges that IBM 
made concentrated efforts to improperly destroy the economic value of 
UNIX, particularly UNIX on Intel, to benefit IBM's Linux services 
business. See SCO vs IBM.

The materials and information included in this website may only be used
for purposes such as criticism, review, private study, scholarship, or
research.

Electronic mail:			       WorldWideWeb:
   tech-insider@outlook.com			  http://tech-insider.org/