🚀 go-pugleaf

	It occurs to me that this discussion is all well and good, but the
best way to deal with potential threats like key registration is to follow
the same tactics:

	- Have experts in the field write and publish (technical) papers 
	that discuss the topic, and some of the issues.

	- Develop and work to develop an awareness in the consciousness
	of the great cryptographically unwashed out there that the idea
	is stupid and impractical.

	- Propose schemes that *would* work but that are (obviously)
	impractical or unsavory, and contrast them to the kinds of schemes
	that Ms Denning is championning. (I.e.: "this scheme works, despite
	the cost of $12b annually, but at least it doesn't suffer the
	problems inherent in <naive scheme A> or <naive scheme B>.")

	etc.

	One of the best ways to fight bullsh** is to establish in the
public consciousness that it's bullsh**. The inverse tactic (establishing
in the public consciousness that "cellular phones are SAFE from tapping")
works fine and has worked well in the past. When people who are aware of
the issues and are known experts publish papers describing the nature of
the bull and the origin and smelliness of the sh**, it winds up getting
read by eager-beaver reporters looking for "background" and sooner or
later the reek becomes pervasive that hopefully someone has to notice.

	There are a lot of smart people who read this newsgroup, who
are in positions to offer thier learned opinions in a more public
forum (and one where lengthy follow-ups aren't the norm!). We need to
educate people - give them enough background - otherwise they *will*
cluelessly accept "cryptography could be used by CHILD PORNOGRAPHERS"
kind of horsepucky as reasonable.

mjr.
-- 
	You can't fix stupidity with software.
	You can't fix stupidity with laws, either.
	You can't even fix stupidity by following up to it on USENET.
						-notebooks of a heretic