Article View: sci.crypt
Article #1868Re: PGP and real criminals
From: Thomas C. Allard
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:22
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:22
34 lines
2921 bytes
2921 bytes
In article <1992Nov17.001101.21926@ncar.ucar.edu>, prz@sage.cgd.ucar.edu (Philip Zimmermann) writes: [lots deleted] > 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? > [lots more deleted] 1. Inncocent until PROVEN guilty. That is his constitutional right. Maybe you think that it is a bad policy, but it is (supposed to be) a right in this country. If you want to debate this, it wouldn't belong in sci.crypt so I'll do everyone a favor by just leaving it at that. 2. Right to remain silent. Again, it is a (supposed) constitutional right that citizens are not required to testify against themselves. I see no reason why that should not extend to one's private papers. I believe that, on balance, this right is a good thing (and, like (1) above, this isn't the place to debate the rights of the citizens). I see encryption as a means of protecting that right from a hostile government (even paranoids have real enemies). This thread's been going on for a while, so I'm trying to be brief here... The bottom line is that if people do not agree with (1) and (2) above, they will likely be hostile to the use of cryptography as a means of protecting these rights (and for you logic fans, you'll note that this does NOT imply that if they agree with (1) and (2) then they will support cryptography). Consider how would you convince someone that a "bad" person (like, say, Ronald Reagan :) should be allowed to say what he likes if that person doesn't accept free speech to begin with. rgds-- TA (uucp: uunet!fed!m1tca00 | internet: m1tca00@fed.frb.gov) [implied disclaimer] -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.0 mQCNAisD0LIAAAED/iySMqSjhdDpeer8AVNJNzRTh61uIgGHVwkczinCxLs9fp4w 6V96UxImXqAGXn9lwNTPYu1cnahFnfaGqNG4AMtOrcVdfcisRHxbOdgCExnKVRAH BN0c+XoZ+HLVB2ryB+lyEC2C6nR2NV64DneZE+jCKUD9S7H6F2Oj3mNEdldnAAUR tCBUb20gQWxsYXJkIDxtMXRjYTAwQGZlZC5mcmIuZ292Pg== =btzW -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<9173@arccs1.fed.FRB.GOV>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!fed!fed.frb.gov!m1tca00References:
<1992Nov17.001101.21926@ncar.ucar.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!fed!fed.frb.gov!m1tca00 From: m1tca00@fed.frb.gov (Thomas C. Allard) Newsgroups: sci.crypt Subject: Re: PGP and real criminals Message-ID: <9173@arccs1.fed.FRB.GOV> Date: 18 Nov 92 17:22:41 GMT References: <1992Nov17.001101.21926@ncar.ucar.edu> Sender: usenet@fed.FRB.GOV Reply-To: m1tca00@fed.frb.gov (Thomas C. Allard) Organization: Federal Reserve Board, Wash, DC Lines: 34