7 ms·

Why I Wrote PGP (1999)

149 points by pdkl95 11y ago

Rmilb 11y ago
> If privacy is outlawed, only outlaws will have privacy. This still rings very true to this day.
- ctdonath 11y ago
  Worth noting: "if X is outlawed, only outlaws will have X" usually overlooks how many otherwise law-abiding citizens will legislatively become outlaws because they won't give up their right to X. (Current example: a registration/prohibition law in New York has turned about a million otherwise exemplary residents into "outlaws" as the SAFE Act has a compliance rate of about 4%.) Rather than solving the problem, legislators alienate & criminalize much of the population.
  - Jtsummers 11y ago
    I always thought that part was understood. My interpretation of it has always (or for as long as I can recall) been that the "outlaws" are both actual criminals (ill-intent) and de facto criminals (no ill-intent, but caught by the current legislation for doing or possessing something that used to be legal or ignored by the law).
  - maemilius 11y ago
    My favorite has always been: "Outlaws do X, but X isn't against the law. If we make X against the law, it will make it harder for outlaws to do X", when, in reality, outlaws weren't doing that thing legally (read: traceably) in the first place.
Jtsummers 11y ago
The government initially claimed that using Clipper would be voluntary, that no one would be forced to use it instead of other types of cryptography. But the public reaction against the Clipper chip was strong, stronger than the government anticipated. The computer industry monolithically proclaimed its opposition to using Clipper. FBI director Louis Freeh responded to a question in a press conference in 1994 by saying that if Clipper failed to gain public support, and FBI wiretaps were shut out by non-government-controlled cryptography, his office would have no choice but to seek legislative relief. Later, in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City tragedy, Mr. Freeh testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that public availability of strong cryptography must be curtailed by the government (although no one had suggested that cryptography was used by the bombers). Sounds a bit like some of the conversations going on again, today. The last sentence in particular.
- clay_to_n 11y ago
  Yes. The difference is that today, about Paris, people are suggesting that cryptography (or Xbox games??) were used by the bombers.
  - throwaway7767 11y ago
    Is there any credible data to support that? The NYT seemed to be the source for that claim, and they quietly pulled that story. It's still repeated by media outlets elsewhere. Not that it would change my opinion that government mandated crypto backdoors are a bad idea if they had.
    - clay_to_n 11y ago
      I don't know. My impression (from the few articles I saw mentioning crypto / video games) was that it was total speculation (probably before most facts were known) from some "official" source.
    - flatline 11y ago
      French intelligence has heavily infiltrated the regional extremist Muslim community and they had no idea about these attacks in advance. Ergo, the terrorists were using encryption. That was the speculation I heard the other evening on NPR, by someone lobbying to put limits on private citizens' use of strong crypto.
      - wuschel 11y ago
        I would disagree with this reasoning. Yes, french HUMINT has heavily infiltrated extremist organizations, and failed to prevent this attack. It does not mean that it was the use of encryption that allowed ISIS/extremist organizations to execute this attack on french soil. The french secret service approach is fundamentally different from the US, as they historically rely less on SIGINT. I am not sure where I read it, but in presume the number of prevented attack is in the thousands.
Sealy 11y ago
Thanks for the share. Relevant given politicians are currently, and predictably using the recent news to push through various snoopers charters. Has nobody told them that in reality, the problem is not encryption. Its poor foreign policy as well as poor international relations. Thats my two cents for what its worth. Im no expert on foreign policy though although I do understand that the clear agenda in it is peace.
kaizendad 11y ago
Thanks for sharing this. It's terrifying how relevant this is - the predicted government ability to read all communications has come true.
iamleppert 11y ago
I wonder how the people who wrote crypto software and provide secure messaging services feel about terrorists and other bad people using their products to execute their plans? Most of these people wouldn't have the ability or access to such technology had it not be for the efforts of a few who have made it very accessible and user friendly. I know there are plenty of legitimate uses, but especially for the services that essentially bill themselves as secure and untraceable, you have to know at a certain point you've designed and built technology that is actively being used to hurt innocent people. For me it would be difficult to quantify if the amount of good is worth the all the bad people in the world.
- hellbanner 11y ago
  This is the "think of the children" argument used by many manipulative government news agencies when discussing anonymous money anonymous communication anonymous residence anonymous weapons etc Maybe we should make hands illegal since they do illegal things and you can only use your hand with a license from the smart-over-lord-government, right? Or less dramatically, all technology and all constructions from home improvements to particle accelerators to hairspray to encrypted internet should pass review from the government and people can only work on what the government approves and use things they have licenses for. -- Do you want to apply your same argument to car manufacturers? Cars can be used by kidnappers, bank robbers, rapists and murderers to flee crime scenes. So car manufacturers should stop producing cars because all of the good they are used for (visiting loved ones in the hospital, visiting your kids baseball game, going to work) isn't worth the carnage caused by the "bad people"?
  - CrimsnBlade 11y ago
    Exactly right. It goes with almost anything, if you make it, someone will end up finding a way to use it in a negative way. If everyone lived thinking X shouldn't be created because it could turn into Y then we would all be living in caves afraid of everyone else.
    - hellbanner 11y ago
neo2006 11y ago
When politicians will understand that technology is only a tool. The way it is used can be evil but not the technology itself.
upofadown 11y ago
The interesting thing in retrospect is that the pro-crypto faction seems to have won. These days anyone that actually needs cryto can get it and use it. The amount of useful intelligence that a government can get from passive monitoring is constantly decreasing. Entities like the NSA have to concentrate on stuff like meta-data as they can be sure that most of the interesting content is unavailable to them. Signals intelligence is quickly becoming technologically obsolete. So the situation that the Clipper chip supporters feared back in the day has become real. It would be really good if the NSAs of the world would just accept this and stop doing evil in their desperate attempt to survive.
- Jtsummers 11y ago
  The NSA also focused on meta-data because it was more likely to survive a legal challenge. A law enforcement observer can make note of you entering and leaving a building at certain times. Your entrance and exit is public. What they can't do, without warrants (legally, not speaking to technical ability), is observe what happens inside a private place or within (what's intended to be) private communications. Meta-data also bypasses codes, as you point out, by revealing the network of communication (who-with-who, when, and how often). So whether the communication/interaction is recorded and understandable or not becomes less important. In the case that it is recorded and understandable, excellent, even more intel. If it's not, they still have some material to work with.
  - felipeerias 11y ago
    The focus on bulk collection of metadata is based on the assumption that it can be used to stop terrorists and other enemies. This assumption remains unproven. American drones routinely murder people abroad purely because of their metadata, and yet peace is nowhere nearer. At home, it turns out that it is pretty much impossible to stop a handful of people who have access to weapons, want to do as much damage as possible, and don't fear death. Increasing the surveillance on regular citizens will not change that.
  - __jal 11y ago
    I think you are confusing military and civil intelligence, which is not terribly surprising, because they are increasingly being blurred, but it it important to keep in mind. The NSA, at least on the margin, does not care about convictions. Their mandate has nothing to do with law enforcement. You're right that metadata is often much more operationally important than the message. But the DEA-style parallel-construction corruption is a hobby business for the NSA.
broswell 11y ago
PGP Usabilty: In the old days (Groupwise?) I found PGP easy to implement and use. Today I find it nearly impossible. Apparently I am not alone. http://www.gaudior.net/alma/johnny.pdf http://www.gaudior.net/alma/johnny.pdf I have found S/MIME a bit easier to implement, but still much harder. Is it a conspiracy to keep people from using crypto?
- unfunco 11y ago
  I was using Groupwise in 2007 at a previous employer, and PGP was definitely easy to use with Groupwise. I worked in a MIS department for a large UK company, and the customer services department was in a small town in Wales, the kind of town where not many people had broadband in 2007, and the staff were not trained in any technical specialty, it was mostly just people with jobs instead of people with careers. The staff used to send banking information using PGP and Groupwise and people rarely had issues. The problem now is the increasing number of centralised services, Google doesn't want to be storing encrypted emails within Gmail, because the content cannot be analysed for advertising purposes. And the same goes for other free email providers. It's still possible, but it is increasingly difficult.
- JshWright 11y ago
  Well, given the fact that Phil himself doesn't use PGP, I don't think I'd call it a 'conspiracy'. It just turns out that reliable, secure, identifiable crypto is hard to do... That's why prz is doing Silent Circle now. VoIP crypto is actually easier, since you can rely on the fact that it's very difficult to convincingly forge someone's voice. Tie that to the crypto verification (via SAS) and it's easy for anyone to have a secure channel they're confident is actually secure.
broswell 11y ago
In the 90's I found PGP fairly easy to use (with old versions of Novell Groupwise) Today I find it fairly difficult to implement with modern email systems and devices. Apparently I am not alone. http://www.gaudior.net/alma/johnny.pdf http://www.gaudior.net/alma/johnny.pdf I have found S/MIME to be barely implementable. What can we do together to make it easier to use email encryption?
- scott_karana 11y ago
  Dupe comment?
jsatk 11y ago
Thanks for posting. This is incredible.

149 points by pdkl95 11y ago

Rmilb 11y ago

> If privacy is outlawed, only outlaws will have privacy. This still rings very true to this day.

ctdonath 11y ago
Worth noting: "if X is outlawed, only outlaws will have X" usually overlooks how many otherwise law-abiding citizens will legislatively become outlaws because they won't give up their right to X. (Current example: a registration/prohibition law in New York has turned about a million otherwise exemplary residents into "outlaws" as the SAFE Act has a compliance rate of about 4%.) Rather than solving the problem, legislators alienate & criminalize much of the population.
- Jtsummers 11y ago
  I always thought that part was understood. My interpretation of it has always (or for as long as I can recall) been that the "outlaws" are both actual criminals (ill-intent) and de facto criminals (no ill-intent, but caught by the current legislation for doing or possessing something that used to be legal or ignored by the law).
- maemilius 11y ago
  My favorite has always been: "Outlaws do X, but X isn't against the law. If we make X against the law, it will make it harder for outlaws to do X", when, in reality, outlaws weren't doing that thing legally (read: traceably) in the first place.

Jtsummers 11y ago

The government initially claimed that using Clipper would be voluntary, that no one would be forced to use it instead of other types of cryptography. But the public reaction against the Clipper chip was strong, stronger than the government anticipated. The computer industry monolithically proclaimed its opposition to using Clipper. FBI director Louis Freeh responded to a question in a press conference in 1994 by saying that if Clipper failed to gain public support, and FBI wiretaps were shut out by non-government-controlled cryptography, his office would have no choice but to seek legislative relief. Later, in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City tragedy, Mr. Freeh testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that public availability of strong cryptography must be curtailed by the government (although no one had suggested that cryptography was used by the bombers). Sounds a bit like some of the conversations going on again, today. The last sentence in particular.

clay_to_n 11y ago
Yes. The difference is that today, about Paris, people are suggesting that cryptography (or Xbox games??) were used by the bombers.
- throwaway7767 11y ago
  Is there any credible data to support that? The NYT seemed to be the source for that claim, and they quietly pulled that story. It's still repeated by media outlets elsewhere. Not that it would change my opinion that government mandated crypto backdoors are a bad idea if they had.
  - clay_to_n 11y ago
    I don't know. My impression (from the few articles I saw mentioning crypto / video games) was that it was total speculation (probably before most facts were known) from some "official" source.
  - flatline 11y ago
    French intelligence has heavily infiltrated the regional extremist Muslim community and they had no idea about these attacks in advance. Ergo, the terrorists were using encryption. That was the speculation I heard the other evening on NPR, by someone lobbying to put limits on private citizens' use of strong crypto.
    - wuschel 11y ago
      I would disagree with this reasoning. Yes, french HUMINT has heavily infiltrated extremist organizations, and failed to prevent this attack. It does not mean that it was the use of encryption that allowed ISIS/extremist organizations to execute this attack on french soil. The french secret service approach is fundamentally different from the US, as they historically rely less on SIGINT. I am not sure where I read it, but in presume the number of prevented attack is in the thousands.

Sealy 11y ago

Thanks for the share. Relevant given politicians are currently, and predictably using the recent news to push through various snoopers charters. Has nobody told them that in reality, the problem is not encryption. Its poor foreign policy as well as poor international relations. Thats my two cents for what its worth. Im no expert on foreign policy though although I do understand that the clear agenda in it is peace.

kaizendad 11y ago

Thanks for sharing this. It's terrifying how relevant this is - the predicted government ability to read all communications has come true.

iamleppert 11y ago

I wonder how the people who wrote crypto software and provide secure messaging services feel about terrorists and other bad people using their products to execute their plans? Most of these people wouldn't have the ability or access to such technology had it not be for the efforts of a few who have made it very accessible and user friendly. I know there are plenty of legitimate uses, but especially for the services that essentially bill themselves as secure and untraceable, you have to know at a certain point you've designed and built technology that is actively being used to hurt innocent people. For me it would be difficult to quantify if the amount of good is worth the all the bad people in the world.

hellbanner 11y ago
This is the "think of the children" argument used by many manipulative government news agencies when discussing anonymous money anonymous communication anonymous residence anonymous weapons etc Maybe we should make hands illegal since they do illegal things and you can only use your hand with a license from the smart-over-lord-government, right? Or less dramatically, all technology and all constructions from home improvements to particle accelerators to hairspray to encrypted internet should pass review from the government and people can only work on what the government approves and use things they have licenses for. -- Do you want to apply your same argument to car manufacturers? Cars can be used by kidnappers, bank robbers, rapists and murderers to flee crime scenes. So car manufacturers should stop producing cars because all of the good they are used for (visiting loved ones in the hospital, visiting your kids baseball game, going to work) isn't worth the carnage caused by the "bad people"?
- CrimsnBlade 11y ago
  Exactly right. It goes with almost anything, if you make it, someone will end up finding a way to use it in a negative way. If everyone lived thinking X shouldn't be created because it could turn into Y then we would all be living in caves afraid of everyone else.
  - hellbanner 11y ago

neo2006 11y ago

When politicians will understand that technology is only a tool. The way it is used can be evil but not the technology itself.

upofadown 11y ago

The interesting thing in retrospect is that the pro-crypto faction seems to have won. These days anyone that actually needs cryto can get it and use it. The amount of useful intelligence that a government can get from passive monitoring is constantly decreasing. Entities like the NSA have to concentrate on stuff like meta-data as they can be sure that most of the interesting content is unavailable to them. Signals intelligence is quickly becoming technologically obsolete. So the situation that the Clipper chip supporters feared back in the day has become real. It would be really good if the NSAs of the world would just accept this and stop doing evil in their desperate attempt to survive.

Jtsummers 11y ago
The NSA also focused on meta-data because it was more likely to survive a legal challenge. A law enforcement observer can make note of you entering and leaving a building at certain times. Your entrance and exit is public. What they can't do, without warrants (legally, not speaking to technical ability), is observe what happens inside a private place or within (what's intended to be) private communications. Meta-data also bypasses codes, as you point out, by revealing the network of communication (who-with-who, when, and how often). So whether the communication/interaction is recorded and understandable or not becomes less important. In the case that it is recorded and understandable, excellent, even more intel. If it's not, they still have some material to work with.
- felipeerias 11y ago
  The focus on bulk collection of metadata is based on the assumption that it can be used to stop terrorists and other enemies. This assumption remains unproven. American drones routinely murder people abroad purely because of their metadata, and yet peace is nowhere nearer. At home, it turns out that it is pretty much impossible to stop a handful of people who have access to weapons, want to do as much damage as possible, and don't fear death. Increasing the surveillance on regular citizens will not change that.
- __jal 11y ago
  I think you are confusing military and civil intelligence, which is not terribly surprising, because they are increasingly being blurred, but it it important to keep in mind. The NSA, at least on the margin, does not care about convictions. Their mandate has nothing to do with law enforcement. You're right that metadata is often much more operationally important than the message. But the DEA-style parallel-construction corruption is a hobby business for the NSA.

broswell 11y ago

PGP Usabilty: In the old days (Groupwise?) I found PGP easy to implement and use. Today I find it nearly impossible. Apparently I am not alone. http://www.gaudior.net/alma/johnny.pdf http://www.gaudior.net/alma/johnny.pdf I have found S/MIME a bit easier to implement, but still much harder. Is it a conspiracy to keep people from using crypto?

unfunco 11y ago
I was using Groupwise in 2007 at a previous employer, and PGP was definitely easy to use with Groupwise. I worked in a MIS department for a large UK company, and the customer services department was in a small town in Wales, the kind of town where not many people had broadband in 2007, and the staff were not trained in any technical specialty, it was mostly just people with jobs instead of people with careers. The staff used to send banking information using PGP and Groupwise and people rarely had issues. The problem now is the increasing number of centralised services, Google doesn't want to be storing encrypted emails within Gmail, because the content cannot be analysed for advertising purposes. And the same goes for other free email providers. It's still possible, but it is increasingly difficult.
JshWright 11y ago
Well, given the fact that Phil himself doesn't use PGP, I don't think I'd call it a 'conspiracy'. It just turns out that reliable, secure, identifiable crypto is hard to do... That's why prz is doing Silent Circle now. VoIP crypto is actually easier, since you can rely on the fact that it's very difficult to convincingly forge someone's voice. Tie that to the crypto verification (via SAS) and it's easy for anyone to have a secure channel they're confident is actually secure.

broswell 11y ago

In the 90's I found PGP fairly easy to use (with old versions of Novell Groupwise) Today I find it fairly difficult to implement with modern email systems and devices. Apparently I am not alone. http://www.gaudior.net/alma/johnny.pdf http://www.gaudior.net/alma/johnny.pdf I have found S/MIME to be barely implementable. What can we do together to make it easier to use email encryption?

scott_karana 11y ago
Dupe comment?

jsatk 11y ago

Thanks for posting. This is incredible.