🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov15.065531.2823@cactus.org> ritter@cactus.org (Terry Ritter) writes:
> As a simple engineer, one way I would imagine that this could be
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	Have some self respect for crying out loud.  As an engineer you
	are BETTER equipped to think about cryptography than almost
	all of the technology-ignorant lawmakers. The vaste majority of
	political leaders we have make fools out of themselves by making 
	laws about things they can't begin to understand.  It would be
	comical if it were not so dangerous to the nation.

> The government would probably be lots slicker than this in real
> life, but this scenario serves as a warning of what could happen
> to cryptography. 
	Where do you get this idea that our current government is clever?
	Is it the clever way they have solved the "drug problem"?  Perhaps
	the slick way they have solved the crime rate? Or maybe the incredibly
	clever way they have made the economy florish?  ;-)  
	The simple fact is that our government is just as powerless against
	the changes going on here as the Soviet government was there.
	We have old cold-warriors in charge and they don't seem to know
	any new tricks for the post cold war world.  The whole situations is
	spinning out of control for them and they don't know why the old
	behavior patterns don't work.  (e.g. Got a problem?  Make a law against
	it--that'll work.)

>The government will first try for *far* more stringent legislation.  
>*That* is what we need to defeat.
	On the contrary.  The more absurd and unenforceable the better.
	Don't take aspirin for a brain tumor.  Excise it.

> Now, the first thing we need to do to prevent this is to see how
> good the arguments on the other side really are.  This apparently
> requires a degree of openness which many find difficult to accept.
	The other side you refer to is the national security state.
	It must be dismantled, piece by piece if we are to live free
	in this country.  It is time we stopped feeding the monster
	that will devour us.  The national security apparatus has a
	huge black budget and a large payroll with no KGB to fight.
	Who do you think they're going to turn on now?  US that WHO!
	We the people of the United States.  If we don't do everything
	in our power to defend freedom in this country we don't deserve
	it.  Knuckling under to domestic enemies is no more honorable
	than backing down before foreign enemies.  People who refuse
	to admit that we have a serious post-coldwar problem with the
	dogs of war are part of the problem.  We must educate ourselves
	to the danger.  Our freedom is at stake now more than it has been
	in 200 years.  

> Then, once we have the good arguments, and the analysis used in
> picking those arguments, we may decide that completely unrestricted
> use of cryptography really is *not* in the interests of society.
	Don't you realize that what you are saying is no less heinous than
	"we may decide that freedom of thought is not in the interests
	of society"?  Restricting cryptography is equivalent to makeing
	certain mathematical transformations of data illegal. 
	First, the war on drugs to limit what someone can do with THEIR
	OWN mind and then the war on cryptography to limit what you
	can do with numbers in a file.  Yeah, we've got to protect society
	from those dangerous people that perform unnatural acts with 
	binary numbers.  ;-)


> There is not much magic here, but this simple process, the normal
> way one might go at finding the truth amidst two polarized sides,
> somehow seems to be taken as a radical agenda.  Is the possibility
> of finding or revealing an unpleasant truth really that scary?  Or
> does nobody even care?
	Nobody is afraid of the truth here.  Some people do seem afraid
	of the government though. ;-)

						smg