🚀 go-pugleaf

 In <TSOS.175.721929857@uni-duesseldorf.de>
 TSOS@uni-duesseldorf.de (Detlef Lannert) writes:


>In article <1992Nov13.075430.8494@cactus.org> ritter@cactus.org
>(Terry Ritter) writes:
>> Prior to the advent of personal computers and strong cryptography,
>> anything beyond what one could remember was, in the end, open to
>> examination by society.  As far as I know, this was a traditional
>> and accepted basis for much or most of Western society.  

>NO.
>
>"Prior to the advent of personal computers and strong cryptography,"
>even simple codes (from today's point of view) were de facto unbreak-
>able.

 While strictly true, this a little deceptive:  In the past, as
 now, most cryptographic systems which novices devised could indeed
 be penetrated, at the time, with simple cryptanalysis.

 The problem is as much the wide availability of computers as it is
 the development of new cryptography.  Prior to PC's, few people
 would know how to make a good cipher, and many fewer still would
 take the time to use one.  Now that we have PC's, ordinary people
 can take advantage of serious ciphers without knowing much about
 cryptography, and can use good cryptography with very little
 time or expense.

 Conclusion:  Strong cryptography as a social issue is indeed a
 modern situation.


>Why should this suddenly be a problem?
                 ^^^^^^^^
 See above.


>Why do you want special legislation right now?

 I'm not sure I do.

 What I want is for people who are interested in cryptography to
 be prepared to answer a call for legislation, should it occur
 (as I expect that it will).

 Presumably, if we understand the issues, we will be better placed
 to influence legislation.  And it really is impossible to truly
 understand issues without paying the opponents the respect of
 trying to understand their point of view.  And there is always
 the chance that, when we do this fairly, we may find that they
 actually see something which we have missed.  Since we have to
 live here too, if there are problems, we may need to address
 them in our own interests.

 I believe there is at least a potential for some serious social
 problems which are a direct consequence of the widespread use of
 serious cryptography.  I believe we would be well advised to
 seek out these problems and understand them and propose solutions
 we can live with, as opposed to waiting for the rest of society
 to encounter problems and then impose *their* solutions on us.

 ---
 Terry Ritter   ritter@cactus.org