1994-07-02 - Clipper = Bobbitized Crypto

Header Data

From: nobody@shell.portal.com
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 41f96a8fd3b6c66efa6d2e000e4b8285c957aece306c3ef029120d2f34ce2ee9
Message ID: <199407022210.PAA24462@jobe.shell.portal.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1994-07-02 22:09:16 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 2 Jul 94 15:09:16 PDT

Raw message

From: nobody@shell.portal.com
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 94 15:09:16 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Clipper = Bobbitized Crypto
Message-ID: <199407022210.PAA24462@jobe.shell.portal.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

> I'm not so kind as others on this list.

> I think people should live consistent with their philosophy and 
> what they advocate. Many times arguments are useless and only 
> experience serves to convince. I wouldn't try to convert another 
> from their faith just because it would do me good. As long as 
> it's possible to find alternate methods of doing the same thing 
> (in this case achieving privacy), I wouldn't try too hard to save 
> Liberals from themselves. I think they deserve to use Clipper.

Consistency with one's own philosophy, huh?  I dont see much of 
that in liberal politics, although maybe to be fair it should be 
applied to politics in general.  Let me cite some examples:

1.) Anti-gun politicians who would regulate away the average 
    citizen's right to self-defense with firearms, but only after 
    they are assured of Secret Service protection, or private 
    bodyguards for themselves.  IOW, a level of personal security 
    not affordable to their constituency.  Clipper is the 
    personal security equivalent of having to call 911 when 
    threatened and patiently wait for the police to show up to 
    protect you, vs. having a small army of Secret Service agents 
    on call 24 hours a day to spring into action to defend you.  

2.) Politicians who accept campaign contributions from teachers' 
    unions, the National Education Association, etc., who vote 
    down any legislation designed to give the average citizen a 
    choice in their child's education, other than the entrenched 
    public school monopoly.  Yet, most of these same people put 
    their own kids in PRIVATE schools, financed from tax dollars 
    by the salaries that we pay them.

3.) Politicians who already employ strong crypto, unavailable to 
    the general public, who want to limit the rest of us to 

All three points apply directly to Clinton, but not exclusively 
to him, of course.

You know, there's just something about the name "Clipper" that 
conjures up pictures of Lorena Bobbitt...  Maybe that's what 
Clipper really is ... Bobbitized crypto... <g>

Anyway, back to your point, the average "liberal on the street" 
may indeed be stuck with Clipper.  And as long as Washington DC 
is dominated by a single party with a liberal bent, maybe they 
can convince the rest of their "fellow travellers" that "Big 
Brother loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life", and 
thus to accept Clipper and its host of problems.  But let 
liberals lose control of this country, and then watch them change 
their tune, when the Big Brother technology they put in place is 
now in the hands of "the other side".

Does anyone remember 20+ years ago when the roles were reversed?  
It was the liberals who were protesting wiretaps, etc. by the 
Nixon administration?  Putting a liberal in the White House 
somehow "blesses" these same things?