Found at: gopher.meulie.net:70/EFFector/effector4.00

########## ########## ########## |
########## ########## ########## |         GILMORE VS. THE NSA
####       ####       ####       |
########   ########   ########   |
########   ########   ########   |   THE CRYPTO ANARCHIST MANIFESTO
####       ####       ####       |
########## ####       ####       |  2nd PIONEER AWARDS DEADLINE LOOMS
########## ####       ####       |
EFFector Online           December 11, 1992               Issue  4.00
           A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation
                            ISSN 1062-9424

                      ACCESSING THE NSA

At the beginning of July 1992, John Gilmore filed a FOIA request
and IV, by William Friedman (WF-3/4); and Military
Cryptanalytics, Parts III-VI, by William Friedman and
Lambros Callimahos (LC3-6).

Gilmore had been re-classified.    

Under the FOIA, agencies are required to communicate
constitutes a denial of the request, giving the requester the

When NSA violated the first applicable time period,
Gilmore filed an administrative appeal with the NSA's FOIA
appeals authority.  There is also a time limit for response
to such appeals.  After this time limit passed without a
a complaint in federal court in the Northern District of
California on Sept. 4, 1992, as permitted by the FOIA.

Gilmore's complaint alleged three claims:  First, that the
NSA improperly withheld these documents from him, and
failure to comply with the FOIA time limits constituted a
form of improper withholding; and third, that the NSA in
violating the FOIA time limits, which should be declared
llegal and enjoined.

the filing of the complaint in federal court, Gilmore obtained
copies of two of the withheld documents:  Military
Cryptanalysis Parts III and IV, by Friedman.  These copies
kind of restriction.  Gilmore intended to get expert opinion
on the national security risk posed by disclosure of these
n such libraries demonstrated that there could be no legal
basis for withholding them from a FOIA requester.

At the time the documents were obtained, Gilmore had not
classified.  It was therefore possible that the documents
Thus, even if the documents were in fact classified at the
time of the request, it was possible that NSA would decide
that they should no longer be classified, and release them
to Gilmore.

After the complaint was filed, Gilmore not only served the
complaint upon NSA, he also served a number of discovery
both the history of these documents and about NSA's FOIA

the discovery requests, NSA finally sent its responses to
the FOIA request.  NSA informed Gilmore that the documents
located WF-3/4 and LC-3, but that LC-4/5/6 had never been
completed because of the death of Lambros Callimahos.

First, NSA asserted that the three documents which did
exist were classified.  WF-3/4 were classified CONFIDENTIAL,
the lowest level of classification under Executive Order
classified SECRET, the middle level of classification.

Under the FOIA, an agency may withhold documents if they
are properly classified for reasons of national security.

Second, NSA asserted that the documents could also be
(b)(3) exemption, documents may be withheld if there exists
a statute which authorizes an agency to withhold them.  NSA
material.  One of these statutes, 18 U.S.C. Section 798,
makes it a federal crime knowingly to disclose classified 
cryptologic or communications intelligence information to
unauthorized persons.

At this point, it became clear to Gilmore that there was a
criminal prosecution.  He also feared that should NSA ever
although the First Amendment Privacy Protection Act
for materials intended for publication where the crime
nvolves mere possession or dissemination of information,
t does not apply to any materials covered by the espionage

NSA did not, however, know that he had them.  Gilmore
of WF-3/4 to the federal district court under seal.  By so
kept out of the NSA's hands, since it was unlikely that a federal
ex parte application to file these documents under seal with
Judge Thelton Henderson, the federal judge hearing his case.
Gilmore also concurrently filed a motion for leave to amend
and other issues arising from his possession of the documents
and the criminality of disseminating documents found in
libraries open to the general public.

Under existing law, the government need only show that the
are cryptologic- or communications-intelligence-related.  It
under the statute is, i.e., whether "knowingly" means actual
knowledge of classification, or merely some reason to know.

(That same day, NSA filed two motions of its own:
a motion for a protective order blocking Gilmore's discovery 
court to dispose of the case on the ground that NSA was
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  In support of its
by Michael Smith, Chief of Policy, explaining why the

NSA was served with papers indicating that WF-3/4 had been
NSA knew that Gilmore possessed the documents.  They
NSA, saying that NSA was very upset and might send its own
agents or FBI agents to get the copies from Gilmore.  He also
that Gilmore might be criminally liable under the espionage

NSA regained its composure the next day, realizing that it
been served with papers indicating what Gilmore had done,
Gilmore had not sent them copies of the documents.  Thus
they could not know for sure whether the documents he had

During this period, tension was high.  Gilmore considered
filing an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order
against NSA and the U.S. Attorney General to prevent them
>from both moving against him personally and against any
copies of the documents presently on library shelves.  This
motion was drafted but never filed.

On the day before Thanksgiving, NSA announced that WF-3/4
that it could withhold them from the public.  NSA gave no
official reason for its action.

NSA is currently reviewing the third document, LC-3, to
been declassified.  (NSA had asserted in its summary judgment
be completed by January 15, 1993, at which time it will

analyzed by Gilmore and his experts, and that Gilmore and
NSA will engage in settlement negotiations to determine

The parties have stipulated that if no settlement is reached
the litigation will proceed.  A status conference has been
motion for summary judgment by February 12.  Following
opposition and reply briefs, the hearing on all motions will
take place on March 22.

[John Gilmore is a member of the EFF Board of Directors. He can
be reached as tien@toad.com.]



                        Timothy C. May

A specter is haunting the modern world, the specter of crypto 

Computer technology is on the verge of providing the ability for 
ndividuals and groups to communicate and interact with each other
n a totally anonymous manner. Two persons may exchange
messages, conduct business, and negotiate electronic contracts 
mplement cryptographic protocols with nearly perfect assurance
against any tampering. Reputations will be of central importance, far 
more important in dealings than even the credit ratings of today. 
These developments will alter completely the nature of government 
ability to keep information secret, and will even alter the nature of 
trust and reputation.

The technology for this revolution--and it surely will be both a social 
and economic revolution--has existed in theory for the past decade. 
The methods are based upon public-key encryption, zero-knowledge 
nteractive proof systems, and various software protocols for
nteraction, authentication, and verification. The focus has until now
been on academic conferences in Europe and the U.S., conferences 
monitored closely by the National Security Agency. But only recently 
years will bring enough additional speed to make the ideas 
economically feasible and essentially unstoppable. High-speed 
networks, ISDN, tamper-proof boxes, smart cards, satellites,  Ku-band 
transmitters, multi-MIPS personal computers, and encryption chips 
now under development will be some of the enabling technologies. 

The State will of course try to slow or halt the spread of this 
technology, citing national security concerns, use of the technology 
by drug dealers and tax evaders, and fears of societal disintegration. 
Many of these concerns will be valid; crypto anarchy will allow 
national secrets to be traded freely and will allow illicit and stolen 
materials to be traded. An anonymous computerized market will 
even make possible abhorrent markets for assassinations and 
extortion. Various criminal and foreign elements will be active users 
of CryptoNet. But this will not halt the spread of crypto anarchy.

Just as the technology of printing altered and reduced the power of 
medieval guilds and the social power structure, so too will 
cryptologic methods fundamentally alter the nature of corporations 
and of government interference in economic transactions. Combined 
liquid market for any and all material which can be put into words 
and pictures. And just as a seemingly minor invention like barbed 
altering forever the concepts of land and property rights in the 
frontier West, so too will the seemingly minor discovery out of an 
arcane branch of mathematics come to be the wire clippers which 

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!


Date: Wed, 02 Dec 92 21:31:47 -0800
From: haynes@cats.UCSC.EDU (Jim Haynes)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Historical Note on Telecom Privacy

Apropos of all the talk on FBI wiretapping, cellular eavesdropping,
etc., I found this passage in "Old Wires and New Waves"; Alvin F.
Harlow; 1936.  He's writing about unscrupulous telegraph operators in
the early days.  They would use information in telegrams for personal

    "Pennsylvania passed a law in 1851, making telegrams secret,
    to prevent betrayal of private affairs by operators.  When,
    therefore, an operator was called into court in Philadelphia
    a little later, and ordered to produce certain telegrams which
    would prove an act of fraud, he refused to do so, saying that
    the state law forbade it.  The circuit court, shocked at this
    development, proceeded to override the law, saying:

       It must be apparent that, if we adopt this construction
       of the law, the telegraph may be used with the most
       absolute security for purposes destructive to the
       well-being of society - a state of things rendering
       its absolute usefulness at least questionable.  The
       correspondence of the traitor, the murderer, the robber
       and the swindler, by means of which their crimes and
       frauds could be the more readily accomplished and
       their detection and punishment avoided, would become
       things so sacred that they never could be accessible to
       the public justice, however deep might be the public interest
       involved in their production.
    The judge therefore ordered the operator to produce the telegrams."


                       CALL FOR NOMINATIONS
                     Deadline: December 31,1992

knowledge,freedom,efficiency and utility. Along the electronic frontier,
this is especially true. To recognize this,the Electronic Frontier
Foundation has established the Pioneer Awards for deserving individuals
and organizations.

The Pioneer Awards are international and nominations are open to all.

D.C. The winners were: Douglas C. Engelbart of Fremont, California;
Robert Kahn of Reston, Virginia; Jim Warren of Woodside, California; Tom
Jennings of San Francisco, California; and Andrzej Smereczynski of
Warsaw, Poland.

The Second Annual Pioneer Awards will be given in San Francisco,
California at the 3rd Conference on Computers, Freedom, and Privacy
n March of 1993.

All valid nominations will be reviewed by a panel of impartial judges
chosen for their knowledge of computer-based communications and the
technical, legal, and social issues involved in networking.

There are no specific categories for the Pioneer Awards, but the
following guidelines apply:

   1) The nominees must have made a substantial contribution to the
      health, growth, accessibility, or freedom of computer-based

   2) The contribution may be technical, social, economic or cultural.

   3) Nominations may be of individuals, systems, or organizations in
      the private or public sectors.

   4) Nominations are open to all, and you may nominate more than one
      recipient. You may nominate yourself or your organization.

   5) All nominations, to be valid, must contain your reasons, however
      brief, on why you are nominating the individual or organization,
      along with a means of contacting the nominee, and your own contact
      number. No anonymous nominations will be allowed.

   6) Every person or organization, with the single exception of EFF
      staff members, are eligible for Pioneer Awards.

   7) Persons or representatives of organizations receiving a Pioneer
      Award will be invited to attend the ceremony at the Foundation's

You may nominate as many as you wish, but please use one form per
nomination. You may return the forms to us via email to


You may mail them to us at:
             Pioneer Awards, EFF,
             155 Second Street
             Cambridge MA 02141.

You may FAX them to us at:
             +1 617 864 0866

Just tell us the name of the nominee, the phone number or email address
at which the nominee can be reached, and, most important, why you feel
the nominee deserves the award.  You may attach supporting

We're looking for the Pioneers of the Electronic Frontier that have made
and are making a difference. Thanks for helping us find them,

The Electronic Frontier Foundation

        -------EFF Pioneer Awards Nomination Form------

via email to:       pioneer@eff.org
via surface mail to EFF 155 Second Street, Cambridge, MA 02141 USA;
via FAX to +1 617 864 0866




Contact number or email address:

Reason for nomination:

Your name and contact information:

Extra documentation attached:




becoming a member now. Members receive our bi-weekly electronic
newsletter, EFFector Online, the @eff.org newsletter
and special releases and other notices on our activities.  But because
things even if you do not elect to become a member.

Our memberships are $20.00 per year for students, $40.00 per year for

Our privacy policy: The Electronic Frontier Foundation will never, under
any circumstances, sell any part of its membership list.  We will, from
time to time, share this list with other non-profit organizations whose
explicit permission, we assume that you do not wish your membership

---------------- EFF MEMBERSHIP FORM ---------------

Mail to: The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Inc.
    155 Second St. #40
    Cambridge, MA 02141

    $20.00 (student or low income membership)
    $40.00 (regular membership)
    $100.00(Corporate or company membership.
    This allows any organization to
    become a member of EFF. It allows
    such an organization, if it wishes
    to designate up to five individuals
    within the organization as members.)

    I enclose an additional donation of $




City or Town:

State:     Zip:    Phone:(    )     (optional)

FAX:(    )    (optional)

Email address:

to my Mastercard [  ]     Visa [  ]    American Express [ ]


Expiration date:



other non-profit groups from time to time as it deems
appropriate   [  ]  .

Your membership/donation is fully tax deductible.
     EFFector Online is published by
     The Electronic Frontier Foundation
     155 Second Street, Cambridge MA 02141
     Phone: +1 617 864 0665 FAX: +1 617 864 0866
     Internet Address: eff@eff.org
 Reproduction of this publication in electronic media is encouraged.
 Signed articles do not necessarily represent the view of the EFF.
 To reproduce signed articles individually, please contact the authors
 for their express permission.
     This newsletter is printed on 100% recycled electrons.