From: Mats Bergstrom <asgaard@sos.sll.se>
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 95 03:43:12 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re:(changed) Criminals and Crypto
In-Reply-To: <199509080406.AAA25183@kanga.INS.CWRU.Edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.HPP.3.91.950908121557.26441A-100000@cor.sos.sll.se>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Tobin T Fricke wrote:

> I think that is a good point.  Of course, if all non-escrowed
> encryption techniques were made illegal, then the criminals would
> just have another broken law under their belt if they used
> strong encryption.  After all, an outlaw is an outlaw because
> he has broken laws, so what sense does it make to make more
> laws for him to break?  Hmph.  

Exactly. As someone recently pointed out, the practical result
would only be to define a new class of single-crime criminals
(cypherpunks/cyphercriminals).

In my .se perspective this is emphasized by our penalty system.
In the foreseeable future (10 years?) they would never get away
with a harsher penalty for using un-GAKed crypto than a moderate
fine. To 'real' criminals, who usually don't have open assets to
forfeit (and the current praxis is then to forget about it after
a few years) and no reputation as law-abiders to defend, it would
be a joke, of course.

Mats