🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <iyqHuB7w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>Well, I tend to argue the case for legal cryptography by using two arguments
>which I think anyone can understand and sympathise with.
>
>The first is:  Does the person arguing for a ban on cryptography trust the
>government completely?  Is he happy to let the government eavesdrop on *his*
>communications whenever *they* (not the populace) decide there's a good
>reason?
>
>If the answer is "Yes, I trust the government", then I give up.  You can't
>argue with positions like that.

I don't think that this argument is at all clear to most people.  Arguments
like "should terrorists, child-molestors, and other evil-doers be allowed
to use encryption to evade justice?" have a lot more impact with John Q.
Public.  The answer to "do you trust the government?" might well be "no",
but if the question is the government versus evil-doers, people are
generally going to support the government, even if they mistrust it in
other ways.

Now, you might claim that this is a false dichotomy, but I've yet to see
an argument here that would actually change many peoples minds.  The
threat of government listening to innocent peoples phone calls seems
rather vague compared to the idea of terrorism or child molestation.
The idea of government tapping into e-mail won't even have much meaning
to most folks.

>The second argument is:  Does the person arguing for a ban on cryptography
>have any idea how this ban might be enforced?  Given that it is possible to
>disguise encrypted data as plain text, how will the ban be enforced? 

Let's say that a suspected child-molestor gets arrested.  As is all too
often the case, there isn't enough admissible evidence to convict him.
However, since he was encrypting his diary, illegal crytographic programs
were found on his computer.  So the prosecutor is able to get him put
away for a while even though he won't decrypt the diary.  Anti-cryptography
laws will join tax laws and other such legal weapons used to lock up
evil-doers who are otherwise too slippery to catch.

Yes, most crypt users (like most tax cheaters) will go free and
undetected.  The use of cryptography might not even be suspected until
an investigation or an arrest is made on another basis.  Prosecutors
like to have such easily-proven charges to backstop cases when they feel
a suspect to be guilty but have doubts they can convince a jury of that
guilt.  Thus, even if a cryptographic ban is widely ignored and largely
unenforceable on its own, it still might be very useful to law
enforcement.

Let me make one thing clear:  I personally believe that there should be
no restriction of cryptography.  But in many people's minds this means
that I'd "let the {terrorist,child-molestor,...} go free!"  It's an
emotional argument, but an exceedingly potent one.

How do you folks propose to overcome it?  Mistrust of government might
sound like a good counter on its own, but when "government" is called
"law enforcement", and the alternative is presented as blowing up
airliners or destroying the lives of children, what do you say?  What
evil is there in denying John Q. Public his cryptography compared to
these things?

		-Ed Hall
		edhall@rand.org