🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov10.165512.2568@csi.uottawa.ca>, cbbrowne@csi (Christopher Browne) writes:
>Since there's quite a lot of seemingly good crypto software that is
>available in an unregulated fashion, (i.e. - It's pretty difficult to
>keep copies of PGP out of the hands of people that want it) it looks
>like there isn't any way of effectively regulating it.

It's pretty difficult to keep hemp plants, pictures of naked people,
alcohol and so on out of the hands of people that want them, but that
doesn't mean we shouldn't pass laws against them.  We have to think of
the moral values our society is built upon and do whatever we can to
support them.  We can't catch all the criminals and evil people, but
we have to try - that's why we need laws which support society values
and oppose things like drugs, pornography and cryptography which have
the potential to be dangerous to society.

>If crypto is used for some communications that doesn't injure anyone,
>then no harm is done.

But you have to consider the harm done to _society_.  I mean, the
cannabis users and pornography readers / watchers also claim that what
they do doesn't injure anyone - but it is well known and well
documented that pornography makes people rape innocent little girls
and reefers make the damn niggers go after ordinary white women and
rape them.  Even bullets won't work against the people under influence
of drugs - see well-researched documentaries like "Reefer Madness",
material from PDFA and so on.

>It doesn't TRULY get involved with crime until
>a criminal (doing something ELSE that is against the law) uses crypto,
>perhaps to keep from being caught.

This isn't enough.  We have to attack the crimes beforehands -
prevention is better than cure.  Just like with drug users and dealers
- it isn't enough to convict them _after_ they have committed the
crimes, we need to forfeit their property so they are not able to
commit the crimes in the first place.

>The issue is whether or not use of cryptology in the performance of
>CRIMES can be effectively regulated.  And while my OPINION isn't very
>important, I don't think that this CAN be effectively regulated.  

See above.  We need to _try_, we need to do _something_ - we can
always make the punishment harsher so as to act as a deterrant.
Perhaps something like two mandatory death sentences for the second
offence in crimes which work directly against society's values (like
drug dealing, use of illicit cryptographic devices, swearing in public
and so on).  And we should increase the resources of law enforcement -
the current guns are not enough against the drug-influenced people.

Just look at the Rodney King incident - there were a whole _bunch_ of
policemen and they _still_ had difficulty arresting just one
drug-crazed man!  Look also at the case of the Donald Scott of Malibu
Mountains, Los Angeles suspected of cultivating marijuana - even though
the LAPD had a dozen cars and lots of men, Donald Scott managed to
take a few shots at the police before they dropped him.  I say we need
to authorize the use of small nuclear devices in cases like this to
save the lives of hard-working honorable policemen and make sure all
the hemp plants are destroyed for good.  There are ways we can enforce
the laws, we just need to political will to use them.

Followups directed to alt.society.civil-liberty.

//Jyrki