🚀 go-pugleaf

 In <1992Nov11.194933.8724@shearson.com> pmetzger@snark.shearson.com
 (Perry E. Metzger) writes:

>Why stop there? Why not outlaw the computer itself? Obviously, without
>the computer, no harm could have been done, right?

>There is a key problem that the sensationalizers have -- they only
>consider one half of a problem. They note that cryptography can be
>used to aid in criminal activity -- they don't, however, look at the
>benefits.

 Apparently you have mistaken this thread for some other.  This
 thread is not about winning some sort of scholastic debate, nor is
 it about diddling around while waiting for the courts to throw out
 any law affecting cryptography.  Maybe they will, but I doubt it.

 This thread is the place to consider how to confront legislative
 arguments, and thus prevent or influence legislation.


>Using the "only look at the harm" argument, I could showt
>that steak knives should be outlawed -- after all, people get murdered
>with steak knives.

 Get prepared for that argument; the opposition will use any argument
 which is effective.  Personally, I did not find your counter-argument:

>When will people learn that not everything can be fixed by a law, but
>that much can be destroyed by one?

 to be nearly as effective.


>Similarly, no law banning cryptography will make the world
>into the place you want.

 The issue is not "banning" cryptography (or computers!); the issue
 is the ability of law-enforcement to access secret material (which
 was presumably passed on regulated lines or public "airwaves")
 *after* due process.  Maintaining future access might be the
 responsibility of the user (in return for the right to use
 cryptography on public or regulated facilities); the inability to
 give access might itself be considered a crime.

 ---
 Terry Ritter   ritter@cactus.org