🚀 go-pugleaf

>But, whatever the state of the law actually is, I don't see any
>reason that cryptography requires any _special_ treatment.  It just
>isn't really different than a wall safe.

> The difference is that what was once rare and easily breached by
> the authorities is now on its way to becoming common and
> impenetrable.  Cryptography really is different from a wall safe.
>
cactus.org

It is cheaper and more effective.  It remains to be demonstrated 
whether that difference of degree is sufficient to constitute a
difference in kind.   However, if you want to treat it differently
under the law, then the burden of proof is on you;  the presumption
goes to me.

Likewise, the burden is on you to show that the different treatment
under the law would achieve some justifiable end.  You seem to think
that it is sufficient to demonstrate that such an end exists, while
ignoring the fact that your proposals, no matter how legislatively
and technically elegant, do not achieve that end.  You seem to want us 
to ignore the fact that all of the legislation and regulation
in the world will not put the technological djinn back in the bottle.  

Denying the legitimate use of technology will not prevent its illegitimate
use.  This is probably true in the general case, but is clearly true in this
one.

You have played a rhetorical trick in shifting the grounds
of the argument away from this fact, but you have not changed it.  If you
insist upon ignoring it while pushing your present line of argument, you will
put your motives into question.

William Hugh Murray, Executive Consultant, Information System Security
49 Locust Avenue, Suite 104, New Canaan, Connecticut 06840                
0 700 968 7729, WHMurray at DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL