🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov10.090133.1707@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu> denning@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu writes:
>... 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.

This argument is a red herring.  As someone who has employed personal
cryptography for years, I am unaware of any successful attempt at
regulating its use directly.  Rather, the government has attempted to
minimise its impact through secrecy with respect to the dissemination
of strong algorithms developed (it is claimed) internally, and of course,
through those stupid export restrictions.  Now that such algorithms
are readily available to the masses, there is this sudden perceived need
to restrict their free use.

We are not "drifting in the direction of completely unregulated crypto",
we are already there -- and always have been.  What Dr. Denning is
proposing is the curtailment of an already existing right.  As we consider
the alleged advantages her proposals would provide to law enforcement, we
must also consider the deprivation of our essential liberties would follow
from their adoption.
-- 
Rob Stampfli  rob@colnet.cmhnet.org      The neat thing about standards:
614-864-9377  HAM RADIO: kd8wk@n8jyv.oh  There are so many to choose from.