🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov17.001101.21926@ncar.ucar.edu>, prz@sage (Philip Zimmermann) writes:
>Lately there has been much discussion on this newsgroup concerning
>the implications of child molesters using cryptography to hide their
>crime.  The first posting on this issue came from Terry Ritter, who
>posed it as a hypothetical question for our examination.  The second
>thread came form Jim Wenzel, who operates a BBS that carries PGP, who
>was contacted by a police detective who wanted to download PGP
>because they seized a computer with PGP files from a suspected child
>molester.  Some people have questioned the apparent coincidence of
>these two threads appearing so close together. 

I bet the child molester was also a drug-using, satan-worshipping
communist computer-intruding spy for Saddam Hussein.

Or, to say it another way, it never ceases to wonder me how easily
influenceable we are by the magic words, ogres and demons.  All
someone has to say is one word and even people who normally are very
cautious about government excesses and perhaps even against the
existence of some of the agencies itself will happily be ready to
cooperate with the Proper Authorities.

This is not directed personally at Philip or anyone - Philip seems to
have done some research on this particular case, and it seems
reasonable to answer informational questions, at least as can be
inferred from the description of the case.  Just a (possibly
over)reaction to the convenient "child molester" example.

>First, on item (1):  This guy is a repeat offender, who just started
>using PGP after getting out of jail from last time.  Carefully
>evaluating everything the cop told me, I was convinced the guy was
>probably guilty.  But these cases are hard to prove in court, and as
>most people know, there are usually a lot more facts known in a case
>than what is admissible in court.  Ah, you say, that was not
>explained.  But even so, why should you be so sure of yourself when
>you so glibly assert that the cops had absolutely nothing on this guy
>except the fact that he had some encrypted files?

Perhaps because "child molester" is such a nice concept.  Remember the
story about the boy that cried wolf?  I think people have heard of
enough cries for wolf when none was to be found.

>I would hope that my political credentials are above suspicion, since
>I went through all the trouble to develop PGP and published my 
>opinions on the role of cryptography in a free society.  But perhaps
>these credentials would not be enough for some hardliners.

You make good arguments, but somehow they are not enough to convince
me.  I am not qualified to judge your acts from distance on what you
did in this case, so don't take this as something directed at you.
It's hard to say if I would have acted differently.

I guess I _am_ a hardliner, since I think the right to be secure with
one's information does extend to everyone, ie. one should not be
forced to register keys even if one is suspected of child molesting.
I hold this opinion even if some murderers or child molesters escape
unconvicted because of this.  It's a bit like with censorship - it's
easy enough to stand for freedom of speech for opinions you agree
with, the difficult part is the ones you disagree with.  In my opinion
it's the only way to go - if suspected child molesters are required to
register keys, then every "questionable" person will suddenly become a
suspected child molester.  Just like with civil forfeiture - the
property of suspected drug dealers can be confiscated so suddenly
there are a lot of suspected drug dealers at every possible place.

Anyway, thanks for PGP and the good, sensible arguments!

//Jyrki