🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov13.094243.10343@cactus.org>, ritter@cactus.org
    (Terry Ritter) writes:

>  OK, you don't like the child molesting example.
>  So propose your own worst case.
>  The point here is to "stand in the other guy's shoes" and use the
>  arguments he could use to influence policy.  The issue is not this
>  particular case, but rather how to confront and defeat such an
>  argument when and if proposed.  Is an equally serious public interest
>  served by having cryptography be absolutely unregulated?  Can you
>  make that case to an ordinary individual or legislator?  If not, we
>  risk getting a law we don't want.

>  Terry Ritter  ritter@cactus.org

    How about this for a worst case scenario:  An organization created
for the good of the people, finding itself with very few controls on
its power and the legality of its activities, proceeds to expand its
original mission to include interception and analysis of practically
_all_ electronic communications within the borders of its own country.
Having something very close to the mythical "unlimited computational
and monetary resources," it renders practically all encryption used by
ordinary citizens useless, and invades privacy at will for whatever
purposes it finds expedient.  Given knowledge of such an organization,
perhaps a group of "inanely contrite Cayugas" or some "cagey acolytes
in a tin urn," why should I avoid the use of good encryption in order
to lessen their computational overhead?
    Here's a way I might express it to a non-cryppie:  Suppose there's
a law enforcement organization that has no jurisdiction in your state,
and yet, for "patriotic reasons," finds it highly useful to break into
your home and your neighbors' homes while you're out, photocopy all
your personal papers, and get out without leaving a trace.  They have
a wonderful skeleton-key device that works on all locks in general use.
    K-mart later runs a sale on cylinder-keyed deadbolt locks, which 
are a bit too hard for the skeleton-key to efficiently break.  Should
we now outlaw locks for civilian use on the pretense that they can hide
illegal activity, so the law enforcement organization can continue its
own illegal activity unimpeded?
    This is not to be construed as an indictment of the organization
which I anagramatically referred to, since everyone knows that they
aren't doing domestic surveillance anymore. ;-)  But, just in case...


+----------------------------+--------------------------------+
|      James A Campbell      |  ujacampbe@memstvx1.memst.edu  |
|  Math Sciences Department  |  PGP 2.0 Public Key Available  |
|  Memphis State University  |  (Not that I use it, myself!)  |
+----------------------------+--------------------------------+