🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4023@randvax.rand.org> edhall@rand.org (Ed Hall) writes:
>Present a clear and immediate danger, and most people are quite willing
>to see some of their freedoms suspended in exchange for removing that
>danger.  This is human nature, and centuries of democracy have done only
>a little to modify it. 
	You seem to see this as a positive feature instead of something to
	be fought.  We have to prevent fear from wreaking havoc with the
	democratic process.  Demons and ghosts are what despots use to
	make people give up freedom.  People who give up freedom for security
	never get either. Look what happened in Germany.  Is it so long 
	ago that we have forgotten?  Look then to Argentina or Chile.
	When you give up a little freedom out of fear you end up fearing the
	one who asked you to give up your freedom.  Count on it.  Talk
	like yours doesn't make it any better.

>What secrets do average
>people have which might require its use?  Remember, the institutions which
>really need it, like banks, can be licensed for it, just like institutions
>who need explosives, like mining companies, are licensed to use them.
	Likening cryptography to explosives is one of the most egregious
	examples of a false analogy used to incite an emotion response
	that I have seen in a long time.  What secrets do YOU have?
	Is there nothing you feel you have a right to conceal from prying
	eyes?  I can't believe my "ears" sometimes at the things I hear
	people "say".  Is this America? Are these the same Americans that talk 
	of sacrifice for freedom every time some scoundrel drags out a flag?  
	What happened to those who were willing to die for freedom, let
	alone put up with a tiny bit of insecurity?  Do we deserve freedom
	in this country?  Have we gotten so addicted to our creature comforts
	that we are willing to sell our birthright for a hand full of
	promises of security?  Promises that will be broken as sure as we
	live and breathe.

>Who has ever proposed outlawing unindentifiable files? 
	Several proposals here have effectively outlawed unidentified
	files because they are indistinguishable from encrypted files.

>Here is my point: until you come up with a way to explain to common
>citizens how banning private cryptography will endanger them, you are
>likely fighting a losing battle.  Much of what I've read in sci.crypt
>has been preaching to the converted.  You'll have to do better by
>finding demons as /immediately/ threatening as those of your adversary.
	This problem is more fundamental than mere threats to cryptography.
	The real problem is how easy people are fooled by despots who 
	offer security but deliver corruption.  We have managed to
	allow fear-mongering politicians to bring on a replay of the machine
	gun duels of the 20s with the war on drugs.  This was sold as
	a freedom for security trade but has resulted in the loss of our
	right to carry cash (read about civil forfeiture) as well as the
	right to be secure in our homes.  All this not to mention
	a huge violent crime problem despite the highest encarceration rate 
	in the industrialized world.  Clearly we have to turn our efforts to 
	innoculating the "common citizens" as you call them against
	fear campaigns.  They always lead to repression and never give
	the security they claim.  There are plenty of examples to educate
	people with.
	

							smg