Conference back40::soapbox

183.0. "Solicitation" by RUSURE::EDP (Always mount a scratch monkey.) Thu Dec 15 1994 16:04

From:	US2RMC::"[email protected]" "MAIL-11 Daemon" 15-DEC-1994 16:00:34.96
To:	[email protected]
CC:	
Subj:	Zimmermann legal defense fund (fwd)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


            Phil Zimmermann Legal Defense Fund Appeal

    In November, 1976, Martin Hellman and Whitfield Diffie announced
their discovery of public-key cryptography by beginning their paper
with the sentence: "We stand today on the brink of a revolution in
cryptography."

    We stand today on the brink of an important battle in the
revolution they unleased.  Philip Zimmermann, who encoded and released
the most popular and successful program to flow from that discovery,
Pretty Good Privacy ("PGP"), may be about to go to court.

    It has been over fourteen months now since Phil was first informed
that he was the subject of a grand jury investigation being mounted by
the San Jose, CA, office of US Customs into the international
distribution, over the Internet, of the original version of the
program.  On January 12th, Phil's legal team will meet for the first
time with William Keane, Assistant US Attorney for the Northern
District of California, who is in charge of the grand jury
investigation, in San Jose.  An indictment, if one is pursued by the
government after this meeting, could be handed down very shortly
thereafter.

    If indicted, Phil would likely be charged with violating statute 22
USC 2778 of the US Code, "Control of arms exports and imports."  This
is the federal statute behind the regulation known as ITAR,
"International Traffic in Arms Regulations," 22 CFR 120.1 et seq. of
the Code of Federal Regulations.  Specifically, the indictment would
allege that Phil violated 22 USC 2778 by exporting an item listed as a
"munition" in 22 CFR 120.1 et seq. without having a license to do so.
That item is cryptographic software -- PGP.

    At stake, of course, is far more than establishing whether Phil
violated federal law or not.  The case presents significant issues and
will establish legal precedent, a fact known to everyone involved.
According to his lead counsel, Phil Dubois, the US government hopes to
establish the proposition that anyone having anything at all to do with
an illegal export -- even someone like Phil, whose only involvement was
writing the program and making it available to US citizens and who has
no idea who actually exported it -- has committed a federal felony
offense.  The government also hopes to establish the proposition that
posting a "munition" on a BBS or on the Internet is exportation.  If
the government wins its case, the judgment will have a profound
chilling effect on the US software industry, on the free flow of
information on the emerging global networks, and in particular upon the
grassroots movement to put effective cryptography in the hands of
ordinary citizens.  The US government will, in effect, resurrect
Checkpoint Charlie -- on the Information Superhighway.

    By now, most of us who are reading this know about Phil and the
case, whether by having the program and reading the doc files or by
seeing reports in the Wall Steet Journal, Time, Scientific American,
the New York Times, Wired, US News and World Report, and hundreds of
other news outlets; on Usenet groups like talk.crypto.politics or
alt.security.pgp; or by listening to Phil give talks such as the one he
gave at CFP '94 in Chicago.  We know that PGP has made great strides
since version 1.0, and is now a sophisticated encryption and
key-management package which has become the de facto standard in both
micro and mainframe environments.  We know that Phil and the PGP
development team successfully negotiated a commercial license with
Viacrypt, and, through the efforts of MIT, a noncommercial license for
PGP with RSA Data Security, the holders of the patent on the RSA
algorithm on which PGP is based, thus freeing the program from the
shadow of allegations of patent infringement.  We know that programs
such as PGP represent one of our best bulwarks in the Information Age
against the intrusions of public and private information gatherers.  We
know that PGP is a key tool in insuring that the "Information
Superhighway" will open the world to us, without opening us to the
world.

    What we may not all know is the price Phil has had to pay for his
courage and willingness to challenge the crypto status quo.  For years
now Phil has been the point man in the ongoing campaign for freely
available effective cryptography for the everyday computer user.  The
costs, personal and professional, to him have been great.  He wrote the
original code for PGP 1.0 by sacrificing months of valuable time from
his consulting career and exhausting his savings.  He continues to
devote large amounts of his time to testifying before Congress, doing
public speaking engagements around the world, and agitating for
"cryptography for the masses," largely at his own expense.  He is now
working, still for free, on the next step in PGP technology, PGP Phone,
which will turn every PC with a sound card and a modem into a secure
telephone.  And we know that, just last month, he was searched and
interrogated in the absence of counsel by US Customs officials upon his
return from a speaking tour in Europe.

    Phil's legal team consists of his lead counsel, Philip Dubois of
Boulder, CO; Kenneth Bass of Venable, Baetjer, Howard & Civiletti, in
Washington, DC, first counsel for intelligence policy for the Justice
Department under President Carter; Eben Moglen, professor of law at
Columbia and Harvard Universities; Curt Karnow, a former assistant US
attorney and intellectual property law specialist at Landels, Ripley &
Diamond in San Francisco; and Thomas Nolan, noted criminal defense
attorney in Menlo Park.

    While this is a stellar legal team, what makes it even more
extraordinary is that several of its members have given their time for
free to Phil's case.  Still, while their time has been donated so far,
other expenses -- travel, lodging, telephone, and other costs -- have
fallen to Phil.  If the indictment is handed down, time and costs will
soar, and the members of the team currently working pro bono may no
longer be able to.  Justice does not come cheap in this country, but
Phil deserves the best justice money can buy him.

    This is where you and I come in.  Phil Dubois estimates that the
costs of the case, leaving aside the lawyers' fees, will run from
US$100,000 - $150,000.  If Phil's team must charge for their services,
the total cost of the litigation may range as high as US$300,000.  The
legal defense fund is already several thousand dollars in the red and
the airline tickets to San Jose haven't even been purchased yet.

    In September, 1993 I wrote a letter urging us all to support Phil,
shortly after the first subpoenas were issued by Customs.  Today the
need is greater than ever, and I'm repeating the call.

    Phil has assumed the burden and risk of being the first to develop
truly effective tools with which we all might secure our communications
against prying eyes, in a political environment increasingly hostile to
such an idea -- an environment in which Clipper chips and digital
telephony bills are our own government's answer to our concerns.  Now
is the time for us all to step forward and help shoulder that burden
with him.

    It is time more than ever.  I call on all of us, both here in the
US and abroad, to help defend Phil and perhaps establish a
groundbreaking legal precedent.  PGP now has an installed base of
hundreds of thousands of users.  PGP works.  It must -- no other
"crypto" package, of the hundreds available on the Internet and BBS's
worldwide, has ever been subjected to the governmental attention PGP
has.  How much is PGP worth to you?  How much is the complete security
of your thoughts, writings, ideas, communications, your life's work,
worth to you?  The price of a retail application package?i  Send it.
More?  Send it.  Whatever you can spare: send it.

    A legal trust fund, the Philip Zimmermann Defense Fund (PZDF), has
been established with Phil Dubois in Boulder.  Donations will be
accepted in any reliable form, check, money order, or wire transfer,
and in any currency, as well as by credit card.

    You may give anonymously or not, but PLEASE - give generously.  If
you admire PGP, what it was intended to do and the ideals which
animated its creation, express your support with a contribution to this
fund.

                           *    *    *

    Here are the details:

    To send a check or money order by mail, make it payable, NOT to Phil
Zimmermann, but to "Philip L. Dubois, Attorney Trust Account."  Mail the
check or money order to the following address:

    Philip Dubois
    2305 Broadway
    Boulder, CO USA 80304
    (Phone #: 303-444-3885)

    To send a wire transfer, your bank will need the following
information:

    Bank: VectraBank
    Routing #: 107004365
    Account #: 0113830
    Account Name: "Philip L. Dubois, Attorney Trust Account"

    Now here's the neat bit.  You can make a donation to the PZDF by
Internet mail on your VISA or MasterCard.  Worried about snoopers
intercepting your e-mail?  Don't worry -- use PGP.

    Simply compose a message in plain ASCII text giving the following:
the recipient ("Philip L. Dubois, Attorney Trust Account"); the bank
name of your VISA or MasterCard; the name which appears on it (yours,
hopefully :-)); a telephone number at which you can be reached in case
of problems; the card number; date of expiry; and, most important, the
amount you wish to donate.  (Make this last item as large as possible.)
Then use PGP to encrypt and ASCII-armor the message using Phil Dubois's
public key, enclosed below.  (You can also sign the message if you
like.)i  E-mail the output file to Phil Dubois ([email protected]).
Please be sure to use a "Subject:" line reading something like "Phil
Zimmermann Defense Fund" so he'll know to decrypt it right away.

    Here is Phil Dubois's public key:

- -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.7

mQCNAiyaTboAAAEEAL3DOizygcxAe6OyfcuMZh2XnyfqmLKFDAoX0/FJ4+d2frw8
5TuXc/k5qfDWi+AQCdJaNVT8jlg6bS0HD55gLoV+b6VZxzIpHWKqXncA9iudfZmR
rtx4Es82n8pTBtxa7vcQPhCXfjfl+lOMrICkRuD/xB/9X1/XRbZ7C+AHeDONAAUR
tCFQaGlsaXAgTC4gRHVib2lzIDxkdWJvaXNAY3NuLm9yZz6JAJUCBRAsw4TxZXmE
uMepZt0BAT0OA/9IoCBZLFpF9lhV1+epBi49hykiHefRdQwbHmLa9kO0guepdkyF
i8kqJLEqPEUIrRtiZVHiOLLwkTRrFHV7q9lAuETJMDIDifeV1O/TGVjMiIFGKOuN
dzByyidjqdlPFtPZtFbzffi9BomTb8O3xm2cBomxxqsV82U3HDdAXaY5Xw==
=5uit
- -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

                           *    *    *

    This campaign letter will be posted in a number of Usenet groups.
I will also be turning it into a FAQ-formatted document, which will be
posted monthly in the relevant groups and which will be available by
anonymous ftp from ftp://ftp.math.luc.edu/pub/hmiller/PGP/pzdf.FAQ.  If
you come upon, or up with, any other ways in which we can help raise funds
for Phil, drop me a line at [email protected] and let me know, so that I
can put it in the FAQ.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBLu6xOtEdYC5Hk8UpAQEhFwP+JrEyY1LvnPmcjp+oLGmIAUbZixJj3QfE
T3KpjnNotoJ7/CtWF1EjhjHN8IXPgcQcyF3p38ekysARDv0MA4tzXhL1Egdq/7QV
L8XW2z0PjWgu8X/Om0eXZkIOGeaoBvP/e/qDYEIcWXtxrwokYcEtoNCR/KQoZw+A
6NnK1nwxnLw=
=Ez3J
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Hugh Miller, Ph.D.                                     Voice: 312-508-2727
Asst. Professor of Philosophy                            FAX: 312-508-2292
Loyola University Chicago                               Home: 312-338-2689
6525 N. Sheridan Rd.                               E-mail: [email protected]
Chicago, IL 60626                         WWW: http://www.luc.edu/~hmiller
PGP Public Key 4793C529:  FC D2 08 BB 0C 6D CB C8  0B F9 BA 55 62 19 40 21

Note: I have verified that the public key listed here for Philip Dubois in
fact matches his previously published key.  -- GDM

       Gary McGath
       [email protected]



% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from inet-gw-3.pa.dec.com by us2rmc.zko.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA06021; Thu, 15 Dec 94 16:00:55 -050
% Received: from mv.MV.COM by inet-gw-3.pa.dec.com (5.65/10Aug94) id AA00316; Thu, 15 Dec 94 12:58:40 -080
% Received: by mv.mv.com (8.6.9/mv(b)/mem-940616) id PAA18275 for efnh-announce-ll; Thu, 15 Dec 1994 15:27:34 -050
% Received: from [192.80.84.60] by mv.mv.com (8.6.9/mv(b)/mem-940616) id PAA18228 for <[email protected]>; Thu, 15 Dec 1994 15:27:09 -050
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>
% Mime-Version: 1.0
% Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
% Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 15:29:52 -0500
% To: [email protected]
% From: [email protected] (Gary McGath)
% Subject: Zimmermann legal defense fund (fwd)
% Sender: [email protected]
% Precedence: bulk
% Reply-To: [email protected]

It is truly wonderful that we get to read this.

Due to a special agreement between the Department of Labor and Digital,
Eric is the only employee of Digital permitted to post actual solicitations
in Notes conferences.

You or I would have had to drastically reword .0 in order to make it into
an "announcement" instead of a "solicitation".

I wonder though -- would sending money to this legal defense fund be
considered participating in the "conspiracy"?

/john

    however much i respect and admire phil zimmermann and wish him to be
    exonerated in the courts, i must agree with .1 that the basenote is a
    blatant violation of digital's policy prohibiting solicitation in
    notesfiles, and it should be removed forthwith. i would also suggest
    that edp's management be advised of this note, because of all people
    who might be expected to understand the rules, edp is probably the
    first one who comes to mind.

    I understood Covert to be saying that Digital is unable to prevent EDP
    from posting such solicitations despite the rules.  Appeals to his
    management would seem to be useless.  
    
    DougO

    i thought covert was being sarcastic.  i HOPE covert was being
    sarcastic.

    I wouldn't count on it.
    
    DougO

No, edp has special dispensation as a result of his appeal to the NLRB regarding
a note he entered in DIGITAL.

    i was going to FOR/MOD but decided not to. i don't understand why eric
    insists in taking his personnel pissing contest with corporate big wigs
    on corporate policies and plastering it in several conferences. the word
    arrogance come immediately to mind. arrogant in that an individual is
    allowed to stubbornly insist on his own "policies" while risking
    everyone else's enjoyment. and this isn't done in the closet. eric know
    perfectly well what he's doing and why he's doing it. i don't care if
    eric want to fight the big shots. personnaly, i don't care if he wins
    or loses. i just wish he would move on.

Eric has been granted some sort of leeway/freedom by virtue of an issue
he raised to the NLRB which was negotiated/settled with the company, but I
don't know exactly what the details are. Eric could probably best answer
the matter. DIGITAL 3050.* dealt with the matter if I recall properly.

I was not being sarcastic.

The U.S. Department of Labor, in the settlement of a dispute involving
a protected labor-related solicitation posted by edp in a number of
conferences, reached an agreement with Digital which permits edp to post
solicitations of any type (not just protected labor-related solicitations)
in any conference.

Now, can we get on with the discussion of the issues in .0?

/jhn

>    i was going to FOR/MOD but decided not to. i don't understand why eric
>    insists in taking his personnel pissing contest with corporate big wigs
>    on corporate policies and plastering it in several conferences.

Ya know, that isn't what is happening here.  The message in .0 is interesting,
and has nothing to do with eric or corporate policies.

Eric was able to post it with a lot less effort than you or I, who would have
had to make numerous changes to turn it into an "announcement".

Now, let's discuss the contents of .0, which is quite interesting.

/john

Actually, aside from the matter in the basenote, I'm curious as to whether
or not the DIGITAL-NLRB agreement applied only to Eric. Seems like an odd
decision for the NLRB to come to.

re .12

Why don't you take that discussion to topic 13, so we can discuss .0?

/john

 capital idea

    John, you're the one who brought up the rathole in .1.  Live with it.
    
    DougO

    	Ratholes are more interesting anyway, huh?

Note 183.10 by COVERT::COVERT 
    
>>    i was going to FOR/MOD but decided not to. i don't understand why eric
>>    insists in taking his personnel pissing contest with corporate big wigs
>>    on corporate policies and plastering it in several conferences.
>
>Ya know, that isn't what is happening here.  The message in .0 is interesting,
>and has nothing to do with eric or corporate policies.

    yeah. rrright. i agree the topic is certainly interesting. but don't
    patronize us that this is strictly a public service provided by one to
    the masses. we could easily discuss the topic without the obvious "in
    DEC's face" message .0 implies. personally, i think eric's efforts at
    "free speech" are admirable. to flaunt it is not. its neither
    productive or in the best interest of all.
     
    
>Eric was able to post it with a lot less effort than you or I, who would have
>had to make numerous changes to turn it into an "announcement".

    less effort on erics part doesn't matter. he seems to have plenty of
    time for issues that concern him. as do i. as do you.
    

    Well said, Gene.
    
    Amen.
    
    j.
    

Fine, Gene.  Why don't you go edit it and post it as a reply here; then
we can have a real discussion.

After you do that, the mods can move all the previous replies to topic
13 and make yours be the base note.

The rathole is crap.

Well, whatever, but the crappy rathole is getting a whole lot more attention
than the subject matter of the basenote, in case you hadn't noticed.

The meta-rathole is, too.

    crap rathole critic, meet crap rathole starter; look in the mirror.
    
    DougO

Note 183.20 by MOLAR::DELBALSO
    
>Well, whatever, but the crappy rathole is getting a whole lot more attention
>than the subject matter of the basenote, in case you hadn't noticed.

    out of respect for /john i'll end the rathole. but before i do i'd like 
    to point out one thing that mr. delblasto pointed out here. if eric
    wishes to have a discussion of any particular topic he needn't present
    it in a manner like .0. its an OBVIOUS violation of corporate policy
    for ALL but a very tiny select few. its taunting. even the NFL no
    longer tolerates that. its immature behavior at best.

    Gee, maybe I entered .0 because I think it's a good cause?
    
    And maybe I didn't edit out the solicitation because I didn't have any
    reason to?
    
    While some noters here have suggested various absurd reasons NOT to
    edit out the solicitation phrases, they haven't suggested any reason I
    SHOULD.  Does it help Phil Zimmerman?  Does it help me?  Does it help
    the readers?  What benefit would there have been in consuming my time
    to do that?
    
    I just copied the note from the net verbatim, and that's all there is
    to it.
    
    In any case, I'm going to separate the topics; I'll leave this one for
    discussion of solicitation and copy the base note for discussion of
    cryptography and Zimmerman's situation.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .7:
    
    > arrogant in that an individual is allowed to stubbornly insist on his
    > own "policies" while risking everyone else's enjoyment.
    
    Aw, your precious enjoyment is being risked.  Gosh, I feel so sorry for
    you.  Wake up.  Big deal, your enjoyment is at risk -- so what, I put
    my job on the line when I believed Digital was lying and breaking the
    law.
    
    I took the personal risk, and I put forth the evidence.  I proved my
    case, in an affidavit and in evidence submitted to the NLRB.
    
    And I'm not the only person to benefit.  Having proven that Digital
    does not enforce its no-solicitation policy, I've broken a path other
    employees can follow.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .12:
    
    > Actually, aside from the matter in the basenote, I'm curious as to
    > whether or not the DIGITAL-NLRB agreement applied only to Eric.
    
    There is no Digital-NLRB agreement.  There is a Digital-Postpischil
    agreement.  I filed a charge with the NLRB, and the NLRB investigated. 
    Because of the evidence I presented, Digital offered a settlement.  The
    offer was made through the NLRB, but it is to me.  As conveyed to me
    through the NLRB, Digital agreed I could solicit in employee-interest
    Notes conferences and agreed to withdraw the final written warning I
    had been given for having solicited.  I accepted that offer and asked
    the NLRB to withdraw my charge (without prejudice against reinstating
    the same or other charges).
    
    
    				-- edp
                               
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

   I wonder if this has any ramifications for the 3Gs?

re: .-1

In the case of at least one, if not 2, of the 3G's, I doubt
that they'd have much interest in returning if begged to do
so.

Ho ho!