🚀 go-pugleaf

Sigh.  I'm getting quite tired seeing Terry Ritter get ripped to
shreds by people who aren't understanding his intent.  Let's see
if I can explain his position any better:

We can assume that some day, probably in the not too distant
future, there will be a Congressional Committee Hearing on
the regulation of cryptography.  Law enforcement officials
will probably testify as to why they need to be able to
decrypt everyone's encrypted traffic.  Some nonsense hysteric
such as "drug dealers..." will likely be raised.  Our
mission is to come up with arguments that will be understood
by non-technical politians, and the general public, as to
_why_ crytography should be free.  Further, we should devise
a scale of compromises, should they become necessary, to
offer in the event that too-strong legislation becomes
introduced.

In the latter category, Terry was suggesting key-logs as
an improvement over key-registration.  He was not suggesting
that this is the be-all solution, just that it is an
improvement.  By all means improve on it, but keep in mind
that so far the following ideas have already been suggested
(in order of increasing preference):
	key registration
	key logs
	unrestricted crypto

Constructive contributions to this discussion would be to add
to the above list, especially in the gap between logging and
unrestricted, and to give arguments to J. Q. Public -- who
thinks that RICO and civil forfeture laws are great ways of
dealing with drug dealers -- convincing her/him that crypto
should be unregulated/minimally regulated.

		--Ken Pizzini