From: dmandl@lehman.com (David Mandl)
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 94 13:13:34 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Gee...
Message-ID: <9404272009.AA01638@disvnm2.lehman.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com>

> On Wed, 27 Apr 1994, David Mandl wrote:
> 
> > Anyone can get this stuff out of the country surreptitiously.
> > I think the point was to get it out _legally_, through the law's
> > _own_ loopholes.  Then they're completely powerless to stop it
> > or persecute the responsible parties in any way. . . .
> 
> Wrong on both counts.  Getting it out legally would be nice--it's a great
> *fallback* position--but that's not the object of the game.  The idea is
> to get it out and make it widely available.  Period.

First of all, the above was not my position (though I have no big problem
with it).  I was just explaining the point of this thread, which the
previous poster seemed to be unaware of.  Now, are you saying I'm wrong
about it being easy to get crypto software out of the country
illegally?  If so, you've got to be kidding.  This stuff has probably
crossed the border fifty times TODAY.  Everyone on this list knows that.
If simply getting crypto code out of the country By Any Means Necessary
was the goal, this thread would never have been started, Perry would
never have considering publishing code in machine-readable form, and
no one would have done the little test with Schneier's book (Hal?...I
forget who it was).  The point was to get it out in such a way that
no one had to hide from the lawman or pretend the code was written
overseas, and we could all walk in the sun.  Me, I have no problem
with people exporting it illegally to their heart's content.

> The Constitution and other laws are not magic talismans.  It is fantasy 
> thinking that technical compliance with the government's laws renders 
> them "completely powerless."  A Smith & Wesson beats four-of-a-kind.

Your point?  Sure, the government can do whatever they want.  So?

I have no interest in the Constitution and the "Law" (though I obey
the latter because I'm not keen to spend the rest of my life in jail).
I just don't care.  All I was doing above was explaining this thread
to someone who seemed to miss the whole point.

>  S a n d y,  (Attorney-out-law)