From: jkreznar@ininx.com (John E. Kreznar)
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 93 18:50:48 PST
To: mech@eff.org
Subject: ANNOUNCEMENT: EFF Statement on Cryptography & Policy
In-Reply-To: <199312082316.SAA12799@eff.org>
Message-ID: <9312090248.AA11429@ininx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>    *    There must be no broadening of governmental access to private
> communications and records, through wiretap law or otherwise, unless there
								^^^^^^
> is a public consensus that the risks to safety outweigh the risks to
> liberty and that our safety will actually be increased by the broadened
> access.

Does this imply that if some ``majority'' so elects, then you _would_
sacrifice your privacy to broadened governmental access?  Is this a
surrender to the most tenacious tyranny of all, the tyranny of the
majority?  Or do you interpret ``consensus'' rigorously, that is, as
an absence of dissent?

	John E. Kreznar		| Relations among people to be by
	jkreznar@ininx.com	| mutual consent, or not at all.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.3a

iQCUAgUBLQaRYMDhz44ugybJAQFvcQP40mk62IRXKxUmwrHrTRfu5XTcXjzVDtJ2
ovW9qCDlZXaQgWVDdgII85BvjgKvqKY6CyeBj9yyvTIgOU7yI7RviN81J63dIh47
ADIlRyCq+GRGvq2rlitw9D3TgQizyzvL7alQm2oviWd/nU8bqDHTQ8wZgABhnf4O
XbtT+vJWRA==
=mcsu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----