🚀 go-pugleaf

Several people have complained, either in this group or in e-mail to
me, that some of my recent comments have been alarmist and detract
from what they consider to be my otherwise well-taken points. Fair
enough.

In one posting I said "Be afraid. Be _very_ afraid." I assumed most
folks would recognize this as the tag line from the movie "Aliens." I
thought it euphonius, so I borrowed it. In any case, having some fear
of what governments may do to us seems to me to be a healthy thing. 

I took great care to be as reasonable and as calm as possible a few
days ago when I posted the first message in this thread ("A Trial
Balloon to Ban Encryption?"). Clearly the key registration idea is
controversial.

Now let me be even _more_ reasonable. I think Professor Denning has
done us a great service, as it has gotten some healthy debate going
about these very important issues. The more than 130 messages, most of
them making excellent points, in this group (and a few others,
peripherally) indicate the intense interest and scrutiny this subject
has attracted. 

Dorothy Denning has long been involved in crypto (she wrote the book,
so to speak) and more recently in hacker matters, as detailed in Bruce
Sterling's new book "The Hacker Crackdown." To assume she is somehow
pushing this idea, in the legislative sense, seems unfounded.  It
seems to me that she thought about some of the serious implications of
widespread crypto use, developed some ideas (as Ron Rivest did last
summer in an article in "IEEE Spectrum"), and talked about them at the
recent Computer Security Conference. Now we may think her particular
idea is wrong, for political and technological reasons, but we should
not villify her for floating the idea.

I used the term "trial balloon" in perhaps a way I should not have. It
may have suggested to some that Prof. Denning, who recently relocated
to the Washington, D.C. area, is part of a cabal of crypto advisors
who are plotting the next stage of our enslavement. (A smiley) So far
as I know--and I hope we'll find out soon enough--there is no proposed
legislation along the lines Prof. Denning suggested. I doubt she was
acting as an agent for the Feds in floating this idea. Just academic
freedom at work.

Furthermore, I favor the open discussion of ideas. I am not one to
fear discussing some new idea, or technology, or whatever, for fear it
will "give Them ideas" or catalyze a crackdown. In an open society
like ours, debate is healthy.

I am happy this issue, which is one of several important crypto policy
issues that have been simmering for a long time, has come to
prominence. I look forward to seeing the debate here.

(The only thing that worries me is that folks may get so clever,
cryptographically speaking, that they patch the flaws in the key
registration proposal and thus make it more likely to become law.
Let's not lose cite of the fundamental issues surrounding liberty,
surveillance, and privacy. But since nearly everyone who has posted so
far seems strongly committed to civil liberties, these worries are
minimal.)

On with the debate.

--Tim
-- 
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^756839 | PGP 2.0 and MailSafe keys by arrangement.