From: simsong@next.cambridge.ma.us (Simson L. Garfinkel)
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 06:24:52 PST
To: George A. Gleason <gg@well.sf.ca.us>
Subject: Re: (fwd) A Silver Bullet to Limit Crypto?
Message-ID: <9211131425.AA09897@next.cambridge.ma.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


In making public-policy arguments, analogies are dangerous.  You need to take  
time to explain them.  The opposition can use other analogies.  It's far more  
effective to argue on the facts.

With respect to encryption, the outgoing administration has argued successfully  
that encryption is the computer equivalent of a saturday night special.  That  
there is no reason to use encryption unless you don't want law enforcement to  
be able to read what you send.  They say that it is only useful against lawful  
wiretaps, because there are other protections against unlawful wiretaps (ie:  
the law).

The way to attack this is not by making an analogy to photocopiers, but by  
saying that there are many unlawful wiretaps, breakins, and thefts, and that  
most of them go unknown and unreported.  Argue that most communications that  
people have an interest in protecting are not about kidnappings but about  
business dealings.  Argue that encryption is vital for communicating with  
overseas offices, where wiretaps are even more common.  Argue that it is  
important for protecting information on your hard disk which can be stolen.

No need to argue with analogy.