🚀 go-pugleaf

Hi Mark,                                                                       
                                                                               
Without trying to force a crude parallel where one doesn't necessarily         
exist, it seems to me that Riddle's response to comments sounded similar       
to "if guns are outlawed, then only outlaws . . ."  Perhaps this applies       
to encryption as well, but there is no debate that the proliferation of        
guns has a high correlation to the number of gun-related deaths.  If the       
parallel holds, then it's reasonable to expect an increased frequency of       
anti-socially encrypted files.  This does not refer to encrypted files 
intended to protect one's privacy, but files which were encrypted to avoid 
arrest and deter investigation.                                                
           
Deterrence plays a daily role in our society.  The deterrent effect of         
possible apprehension keeps most citizens honest.  When a lapse in deterrence  
occurs, many people undergo a quick calculus in which they balance gains       
versus losses.  These are sometimes referred to as opportunity crimes.         
                                                                               
As a society, we provide this deterrence to discourage anti-social behavior    
and we tolerate the need for this coercion because it is believed that         
social living conduces more to productive and happy lives than living in     
isolation.  This is the great balance afterall:  natural liberty vs civil      
liberty.  Indeed, we trade our crude natural liberty as isolated individuals   
for a fuller, more refined liberty conferred upon ourselves as social          
citizens.  I merely suggest that we consider fundamental methods for 
maintaining this balance.  I am wary of escalation in a game with a state 
player whose resources we cannot match.  I am wary of slogans which 
delude us into accepting self-destructive principles:  widely 
distributed guns merely places us on the same deadly playing field 
as outlaws; it does nothing rationally to address processes with 
which to exclude the outlaws from the game.

If we are really concerned with balancing our liberty against security, then
we should enhance and embrace the existing processes which safeguard that
balance.  A properly executed warrant by technologically sophisticated
officials will maintain that balance without unnecessarily developing more
invasive technology than we are prepared to counter.  To answer your question
Mark, let the use of unbreakable encryption serve as prima facie interference
with a police investigation.  Pardon another easy slogan: use a cypher, go 
to jail.

Rich MacKinnon
Univ of Texas Govt Dept