When Encryption Was a Crime: The 1990s Battle for Free Speech in Software(reason.com)
reason.com
When Encryption Was a Crime: The 1990s Battle for Free Speech in Software
https://reason.com/video/2020/10/21/cryptowars-gilmore-zimmermann-cryptography/
29 comments
I like it too, but I'd also challenge even this:
> This is a reasonable enough interpretation of that law, even with the US First Amendment.
I don't think it's reasonable at all to call computer code anything other than speech. In fact, just like you say, you can write it in a book. I'd go one step further and say, "if you can encode it in a book, it's speech and therefore protected expression, and cannot be banned." (I am aware that is more permissive than current US laws - I think illegal numbers is a thoroughly Wrong and unconstitutional concept).
> This is a reasonable enough interpretation of that law, even with the US First Amendment.
I don't think it's reasonable at all to call computer code anything other than speech. In fact, just like you say, you can write it in a book. I'd go one step further and say, "if you can encode it in a book, it's speech and therefore protected expression, and cannot be banned." (I am aware that is more permissive than current US laws - I think illegal numbers is a thoroughly Wrong and unconstitutional concept).
That simplistic and fundamentalist interpretation is incompatible with copyright, publication of trade secrets, classified information, invasion of privacy (nude pics), distribution of pedophilia materials, etc.
I would rephrase your first part as: copyright and government protection of trade secrets is incompatible with a principled (n.b.: not "simplistic") view of freedom of expression.
As far as the other acts that rode along on the coattails of your comment: there's no reason the production of that material couldn't remain illegal in this hypothetical.
As far as the other acts that rode along on the coattails of your comment: there's no reason the production of that material couldn't remain illegal in this hypothetical.
> That [...] interpretation is incompatible with [infringments against free speech].
Yes. Yes it is. That's the point.
Yes. Yes it is. That's the point.
Libertarian reasoning circa 2005: all digital files are just numbers; you can't patent mathematics; therefore download all the movies illegally!
Have you considered the possibility that the urge to censor is the issue there?
Have you considered that the enforcement of copyright, trade secrets, and state secrets are incompatible with freedom of speech?
There's a history of restrictions over specific information, including specific numbers and quantities, or descriptions of items.
We know most of them through exception --- casses in which restrictions were ultimately overcome (the 1979 publication of schematics for a hydrogen bomb by Progressive being a notable instance: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1979/03/10/m...)
Free speech is an ideal, not an absolute. There are considerations under which speech can be and is restricted. Those boundaries shift with time, and specific decisions may later be found inspired or wanting. It's a genuinely complex domain, and simply declaring "free speech" is nowhere near sufficient in addressing the questions raised.
We know most of them through exception --- casses in which restrictions were ultimately overcome (the 1979 publication of schematics for a hydrogen bomb by Progressive being a notable instance: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1979/03/10/m...)
Free speech is an ideal, not an absolute. There are considerations under which speech can be and is restricted. Those boundaries shift with time, and specific decisions may later be found inspired or wanting. It's a genuinely complex domain, and simply declaring "free speech" is nowhere near sufficient in addressing the questions raised.
Yes, and I think this is more obvious today, but in the early 1990s printing it on paper proved the point very clearly. "Software" still has a certain mystique about it even today for non-tech people. But it's just something you could print on paper and type back in.
Do you think the US military doesn't understand the concept of secret papers?
[deleted]
https://xkcd.com/504/
Depends. Pieces of paper can be restricted and considered equivalent to a munition.
Depends. Pieces of paper can be restricted and considered equivalent to a munition.
That was the model for my favorite product I worked on. Search for SUNW and ELVIS. Passion product for Scott.
Here is the "Commodity Jurisdiction Request" for the RSA in Perl t-shirt, mentioned in TFA:
http://cypherpunks.venona.com/archive/1995/10/msg00317.html
My recollection is that this was filed, but not long afterwards, the 40 bit restrictions were lifted, rendering the question moot.
http://cypherpunks.venona.com/archive/1995/10/msg00317.html
My recollection is that this was filed, but not long afterwards, the 40 bit restrictions were lifted, rendering the question moot.
While this actually happened, was it ever challenged in court? Because judges aren’t robots, and I find it highly unlikely that they would interpret so literally as to allow this loophole.
> The NSA made the public case that Zimmermann's software would be used by child molesters and criminals.
They use this as a foot-in-the-door then, and they use this now.
They use this as a foot-in-the-door then, and they use this now.
See Crypto Wars:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars
> The NSA made the public case that Zimmermann's software would be used by child molesters and criminals.
Drug-dealers, money-launderers, terrorists, and pedophiles:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...
Drug-dealers, money-launderers, terrorists, and pedophiles:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...
Another event in encryption was the battle over the publicization of DeCSS source code: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeCSS ; https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/ ; http://decss.zoy.org/
This kind of stuff still applies today, to commercial software and open source as well.
https://github.blog/2021-01-05-advancing-developer-freedom-g...
https://github.blog/2021-01-05-advancing-developer-freedom-g...
But in no way is a book a munition. So the PGP source code was published on paper and mailed to Canadians, but also some in Europe (I believe?), in any case, to countries which do not have such laws applying to encryption software. The reams were OCR'd and typed in, and then put online, where they could be freely downloaded from elsewhere in the world. I believe this is part of why the OpenBSD project was and still is based in Canada.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7885238