🚀 go-pugleaf

 In <1992Nov12.074058.5695@vort.cuc.ab.ca> mike@vort.cuc.ab.ca
 (Mike Nemeth) writes:


>I have noticed this fascination, nay obsession, that the just-say-no-to-
>crypto side has with child pornography. The FBI and suppporters of various
>crypto-restricting bills use every opportunity to tell the public that
>this menace is growing beyond all leaps and bounds, and without the most

 OK, choose your own worst case.  The point here is to be able to
 confront the worst arguments the other side can muster, and so
 legitimately influence legislation.  Blustering won't do it.


>I say that your argument is specious, and attempts to paint ordinary
>citizens who wish to keep their communications private as potential
>child molesters. I also say that the district attorney that would put
>forth such an argument in front of a jury would be cautioned, if not

 If you wish to wait until *after* some of us are arrested and put
 lots lawyer's kids through school to hope for the courts to throw
 out a law restricting cryptography, be my guest.  Frankly, I think
 it more appropriate to understand what a reasonable position would
 be, and push that, in opposition to more radical proposals for
 extensive regulation or simply shouting "Just say NO."


>What i have just described has already
>happened in your country, just replace the word "crypto" with the word
>"drugs". Did the "war on drugs" work? Again i say, hardly. What supporters
>of the "war on crypto" propose will be even worse, an abrogation of your
>civil rights to the point of extinction. You'll be as "safe" from childporn
>as the WOD made you "safe" from drugs.

 Again, blustering won't do it.  What we need are cogent arguments
 which recognize any legitimate concerns society may have about
 the unregulated widespread use of this new technology.

 It appears to me that society may indeed have some legitimate
 concerns which are rooted in common law and The Constitution.
 If we can successfully argue that individual freedoms are more
 important, perhaps we can avoid regulation.  But first we must
 understand those concerns, see how real they are, and how the
 usual voter and legislator are likely to view the situation.

 ---
 Terry Ritter   ritter@cactus.org