🚀 go-pugleaf

- - -

I've been following these intense threads with intense interest.   A few ideas:

(1) "registration" of keys is an idea that has been carried over from other
realms that simply cannot apply to cryptography.  The ideas are incompatible.
It is a flawed analogy.  I submit that the whole essence of cryptography is
precise control of communication, and "registration" is an absurd and silly
idea that abandons this precise control.  The sender/receiver either have 
precise control and secure cryptography or dubitable control and no security. 

(2) Even if some completely clueless or malevolent government officials
and others think that some kind of "compromise" can be reached 
regarding registration, the proliferation of technology and nature of 
cryptography simply make it unenforceable.  But this is really a moot point---
if rights are being infringed by the law, which many seem to be---enforcement
is not the issue, but the constitutionality of the law itself.

(3) A major point I want to bring up---I don't really think the government
has ever legitimately held a `right' to monitor communication secretly. I
personally think our esteemed founding fathers would be aghast at such an 
egregious violation of individual liberties, and the sheer potential for
abuse, which even if has not already been realized (as many claim), all 
measures should be pursued to bar it.  Wiretapping is essentially a 20th
century invention, but evil quickly becomes entrenched.

(4) encoding communication is *not inherently* a crime.  It may mask crimes.  
But this point is completely secondary to cryptography, a neutral technology. 
The analogy to guns is very tenuous for this reason---communication is 
essentially harmless, whatever is sent.  It is the *interpretation* that 
is problematic!  Yes, government detective agencies (police, FBI, etc.) find
wiretapping very effective.  That is precisely the reason it should be 
outlawed.  

(5) The criminal is a criminal not for what he says but for what he
does!  It is only a coincidence that overhearing the former may point to the
latter!  Law enforcement cannot legitimately be based on infringement of 
basic rights.  (Shall we outlaw communication?  Encryption and communication
are for practical purposes interchangeable and indistiguishable.)  Many 
people become pale when hearing of criminal activity.  Let us pale 
when we hear of the means used to pry it out of the woodwork.
A surreptitious government is infinitely worse than a criminal or even a
collection of them!  Law enforcement is an *auxilliary* function of 
government--secondary to its overruling raison d'etre: safeguarding freedoms.

(6) The inevitable proliferation of cryptography can be viewed as a grand 
new *guarantee* to the individual that his right to privacy shall 
no longer be beaten and trampled by an insideously dangerous "higher" power.  
The "government" will soon be deprived of its adorable illegitimate 
blunt bludgeon wielded with impunity in the past.  That thieves will benefit 
as well justifies draconian measures is the argument of a fascist.  
The rain falls down on the just and unjust alike, and cannot itself be 
controlled or indicted.



--

ld231782@longs.LANCE.ColoState.EDU