1993-08-08 - voluntary compliance

Header Data

From: fnerd@smds.com (FutureNerd Steve Witham)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 33afaa08317cb6c5e5d4110afe5293a8e6cae16f6f53e2f0241ca43ceb165092
Message ID: <9308080120.AA16598@smds.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1993-08-08 01:29:07 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 7 Aug 93 18:29:07 PDT

Raw message

From: fnerd@smds.com (FutureNerd Steve Witham)
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 93 18:29:07 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: voluntary compliance
Message-ID: <9308080120.AA16598@smds.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

An interesting statement from the Skipjack proponents is that
its use will be voluntary, and there's nothing that the citizen
using it will be required to divulge (he doesn't even know the
key and they do), and therefore no one's rights are being 
violated.  Assume for the moment that that will remain true.

They just want to encourage voluntary compliance.

This is an interesting point.  How much encouragement counts as
coercion?  Is it okay if they tax a dollar from a million people
and offer the million to you for your information?  Is it okay if 
they make it illegal to sell non-compromised phones (i.e., you
don't have to use Skipjack, you can go unencrypted or roll your

These people are purposely, avowedly, trying to "encourage" us
to do something they have no legal right to require.  Why is that
okay?  Other than asking us as "good citizens" to do something,
how is slanting the incentives okay?  Do we have the right not
to be nudged?

quote me