🚀 go-pugleaf

I feel that I must defend Dorothy Denning's proposal.

Let us suppose that her recommendations were put into practice.  How
would the resulting state of liberty compare to that of a few years
ago; or even to the state for almost everyone today?

My answer is that we would have increased liberty with her recommendations
in effect.  

Today any person can buy equipment to tap your communications.  Quasi-
-government organizations like the watergate burglars, who could not 
have obtained a warrant, can tap your communications.  Law enforcement
people who are looking for evidence to use to get a warrant can tap
your communications.  All of this monitoring would cease.

It is true that absolute privacy would be denied.  However, I think
that encryption, like guns, are very highly overrated as protectors
of liberty.  The true protections are free speech, free press, freedom
of assembly, free elections, and the exercise thereof by the citizens.
These activities act to *prevent* authoritorian governments.  Once
such a government gets into power there is little a rifle or handgun
can do against the secret police in the night and tanks and
infantry in the street.

There is no substitute for the hard, personal work of being a good
citizen.  Guns and encryption are not really useful; they just
give the illusion that you can *buy* liberty, hide in your home,
and not have to work at it.

Similarly, if you cannot talk openly on the net about liberty;
encryption is not going to help much.  Note that it largely
was open rebellion in the Soviet Union that brought it down.

I am also impressed by Denning's arguments that wiretapping, with warrants,
are needed to combat terrorism and organized crime.

I do agree that this non-technical argument should be moved to another
newsgroup if it keeps up.  Any suggestions?

Robert Blandford