🚀 go-pugleaf

From article <1992Nov10.090133.1707@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu>, by denning@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu:
> .................I am also
> not content to let society drift in the direction of completely 
> unregulated crypto without attempting to understand the consequences
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> of that from the view of LE as well as the view of protecting privacy
> and proprietary interests.

Oh, why don't you listen... Maybe it's "professor syndrom"?

Repeat after me: 

YOU CAN REGULATE LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS, WHO ARE ABIDING THE 
LAWS ANYWAY AND THEREFORE ARE NOT A THREAT  [so there's no 
need/reason/right to deprive them of their privacy].  

YOU CAN NOT REGULATE CRIMINALS,  WHO ARE ALREADY VIOLATING 
MORE IMPORTANT LAWS [than using "unauthorized" encryption].

Now  let's get real and think [yes, please!]: if I'm planning
a murder, a major terrorist act, or something similar - would 
I be concerned about adding a [small] crime of using "illegal" 
encryption to my list?
[If your answer is yes - go get professional help.]

And no matter, whether you are going to "let the society"
use "unregulated crypto", or not - it's already here.
Welcome to the reality.
-- 
Regards,
Uri.		uri@watson.ibm.com
------------
<Disclaimer>