From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 94 18:22:21 PDT
To: Anonymous User <nobody@soda.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: Devil's advocate
In-Reply-To: <199407010042.RAA19250@soda.berkeley.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.87.9406301803.A19355-0100000@crl.crl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


C'punks:

On Thu, 30 Jun 1994, Anonymous User wrote:

> 
> I see an argument of "what do you need to protect so badly that Clipper
> cannot work?  Are you doing something ILLEGAL?  Clipper works, and only
> trusted law enforcement personell can use the keys, therefore there is
> no risk here.".
> 
> It is hard to explain to some liberal friends of mine . . .

For liberals, I would examine some pet cause and examine the consequences 
of that cause becoming "illegal."  For instance, if your friends are "pro 
choice," you might ask them what they would do if the right to lifers 
outlawed abortion.  Would they think it was wrong for a rape victim to 
get an abortion just because it was illegal?  How would they feel about 
an abortion "underground railroad" organized via a network of "stations" 
coordinated via the Internet using "illegal encryption"?  Or would they 
trust Clipper in such a situation?

Everyone in America is passionate about something.  Such passion usually 
dispenses with mere legalism, when it comes to what the believer feels is 
a question of fundamental right and wrong.  Hit them with an argument 
that addresses their passion.  Craft a pro-crypto argument that helps 
preserve the object of that passion.


 S a n d y