🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov17.001101.21926@ncar.ucar.edu> 
(Philip Zimmermann) writes: 
         ....
> Let me give you all some background context.  This started last week,
> when I was contacted by a police detective from California who wanted

        Having been well and truly hooked, it's comforting to know
        that the bait was supplied by someone with Philip's
        credentials. Could we restate the problem without the red
        herring? Let me try.

        It is normal and expected to find the forces and friends of law
        enforcement (LE) working to have their convenience, power, or
        budgets enhanced with the help of legislation. If possible,
        this is done surreptitiously. If not, public support is sought
        by appealing to a perceived greater public good and/or a need for
        special powers to overcome a "really bad situation". We know
        from past experience that constitutions, civil rights, etc. tend
        to vaporise or get re-interpreted under this kind of attack.

        It is possible (likely?) that LE will seek to limit the
        general use of cryptography to make it easier (a) to identify
        suspicious persons and activities, and (b) to find and use
        evidence that would otherwise remain hidden. In the process,
        to enlist public support, LE will seek out cases of
        particularly distasteful criminal activity and attempt to link
        that activity to the use of cryptography ("Crypto Madness" at
        a theatre near you).

        1. Is there a reasoned argument, that any newspaper will
           print, that simply and clearly disarms this kind of
           propoganda?

        2. Is there a stronger emotional argument supporting the
           widespread use of cryptography. I'm reminded of the boost
           BBS'ers got from the news of the role BBS' played in the
           conversion of eastern Europe.

        3. Is there a positive, not-so-emotional, argument for actual
           benefits, economic, social, or other?

    More germane to this group:

        4. Are there ways that such legislation, if passed, could be
           sytematically and safely "avoided"?

        5. What are the possible shapes of such legislation? Dorothy's
          "Balloons" are two possibilities. The range would seem
           to go from "full spectrum mindless" like the WoD, to
           tightly defined, like most gun laws. What cryptographic
           countermeasures would be required to deal with each
           scenario?

        6. If this situation is more likely than not, shouldn't we
           stop playing around with big numbers and start developing
           really effective steganography?

           Cheers,
                Marc

---
 Marc Thibault        |  Consulting Systems Analyst  |  The PC: Colt '45
 marc@tanda.isis.org  |  R.R.1, Oxford Mills,        |  of the information
 CIS:71441,2226       |  Ontario, Canada  K0G 1S0    |   frontier
 NC FreeNet: aa185    |                              |

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.0

mQBNAiqxYTkAAAECALfeHYp0yC80s1ScFvJSpj5eSCAO+hihtneFrrn+vuEcSavh
AAUwpIUGyV2N8n+lFTPnnLc42Ms+c8PJUPYKVI8ABRG0I01hcmMgVGhpYmF1bHQg
PG1hcmNAdGFuZGEuaXNpcy5vcmc+
=HLnv
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----