🚀 go-pugleaf

In <Nov13.223702.62690@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> ld231782@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (L. Detweiler) writes:
>
>(5) The criminal is a criminal not for what he says but for what he
>does!

Unfortunately, not always true!

>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.)
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Exactly!  *ALL* forms of communication (except perhaps telepathy ;-)
are already encoded (that is, *represented* in a symbol-set mutually
understood by sender and receiver).  Does anyone seriously think
that the government *should* or *could* restrict the choice of
symbol-set?  I for one don't believe it can be done; with minimal
effort, I can easily devise a code which allows me to pass any
information I wish to an accomplice, with *no* chance that it
will be understood or even *recognised* as an encoded message
by a third party.
-- 

===============================================================================
Dave | dsg@imp.co.uk | +44 753 516599 | "C^i tio ne estas .subskribo"
===============================================================================