🚀 go-pugleaf

linnoise@bigboy (LineNoise) writes:
> The same holds with cryptography-- limit it so that the abuse by 
> criminals and other hostile bodies will have the capability to 
> misuse it.                             ^
			do you want a "not" in here? how do 
			you propose to enforce this? the same
			way it's "worked" (actually -not- worked)
			for guns?

> Allow only those encryption methods defeatable by the law 
> enforcement agencies to distributed and outlaw the distribution of 
> more powerful methods.

again, how do you enforce this? "more powerful methods" are already
out. should we censor Scientific American? sounds very much like
a police state to me. and it -still- wouldn't work.

> And enforce laws that will help protect the common man's privacy 
> from those who have no business in decrypting his data.

sorry, the police are under -no- obligation to protect you, much less
your data. not only that, but they're already overworked & often
incapable of enforcing the silly laws we've given them. i have a -lot-
of respect for most law enforcement officers, but even they will admit
that we're living in a world where pizza gets to your house faster
than the police. laws don't protect people (or data). -people- 
protect people (and data). take away the individual's ability to protect
themselves & we'll see a society where no one is safe from "those who
have no business in decrypting his data". 99% of the time, that includes
the government.

jason

--
sorry, my .signature is on strike.