🚀 go-pugleaf

AND THE DEBATE BEGAN WITH... {From: denning@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu}

>My proposal was to register your private key with a trustee ...

>Thus, don't panic folks -- this was just me making a suggestion.  I
 didn't realize I had that much clout to cause such a stir and ...

>Well, if I ever wondered what it would be like to express an unpopular
 view, I sure know now!

WITH A SUGGESTION THAT... {From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)}

>I urge readers to get involved in this debate.

WITH EVICTION DEMANDED... {From: atkinson@itd.nrl.navy.mil (Randall Atkinson)}
[Please note the '.nrl.navy.mil' above. I didn't realize until now that the
Naval Research Laboratory moderated the cryptology conference... did you?]

>This series of postings belongs in comp.org.eff.talk or maybe
 comp.society.privacy or some other place.

>sci.crypt is only appropriate for technical discussions, not
 discussions of political philosophy...

WITH A RESPONSE OF... {From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)}

>I would normally agree with you, Mr. Atkinson, but this is an
 exceptional case. This is not a philosophical issue -- the issue
 involved is very much one of life and death, and the people who are
 most concerned are precisely those people who are on sci.crypt. I
 realize this discussion violates the group charter, but it is of such
 intense concern to the cryptography community that this is likely the
 most appropriate place for the discussion to occur.

AND... {From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)}

>These and many other issues are clearly crypto protocol issues, albeit
 with some heavy political overtones. Sci.crypt is a much better fit to
 this issue than any other group I have seen.

>And it is far better that we discuss and debate this issue here and
 now with folks like Prof. Denning than that we ignore the issue and
 then read about it as a piece of proposed legislation.

In following this discussion it becomes quite clear that what is involved
is a very basic issue of to what degree of privacy do you and I have as
citizens living in our country.  The subject is by no means a simple one
for there are excellent arguments on each side being presented.  Before
adding in my comments, I would like to present some more excerpts (for
the benefit of those not currently following the discussion) below:

THE GOOD DOCTOR STATES... {From: denning@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu}

>The reason I made the proposal is because I am concerned that we
 may be facing a major crisis in law enforcement.  I expect many of
 you will say "that's wonderful" but I don't see it that way.

[BTW, I wonder what leads the Professor to believe that many of us will
say "that's wonderful".  I didn't think Usenet was an underground BBS!]

>This issue is not about snooping on innocent citizens but about doing
 what we can do prevent major crimes that could seriously disrupt other
 liberties.

>Some people have said we should not give up our privacy to the
 government.  But the constitution does not give us absolute privacy.
 We are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures, but not
 reasonable ones in response to "probable cause" of crime.  In all
 areas of our lives, the government can invade our privacy if they
 have good reason to believe we are engaged in major criminal activity.
 They can break into our homes, our safes, and so on.  Do we really
 want a society where electronic communications cannot ever be broken
 when there is good reason to believe some major threat against society
 is being planned?

ON THE OTHER SIDE... {From: george@tessi.com (George Mitchell)}

>I agree with you that the government has the right, and indeed the
 duty, to ensure that both of us, and our children, can safely walk
 through the park of our choice.  But that doesn't make me want it to
 be any easier for the government to read my private correspondence,
 just on the off chance that I might be discussing something the
 government doesn't like.

---
 . SM 1.06 ----- . Email: john.eichler@grapevine.lrk.ar.us