From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@access.digex.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 94 14:45:01 PDT
To: nobody@jpunix.com (Anonymous)
Subject: Re: your mail
In-Reply-To: <199410042048.PAA05070@jpunix.com>
Message-ID: <199410042144.AA13550@access4.digex.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Anonymous scripsit
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 
> > That being said let it be known that I consider the following as a
> > "Cypherpunk victory."
> >
> > 1.  Complete freedom of technology, particularly encryption technology,
> 	       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > regulated only by market forces.  This implies the lack of import/export
> > restrictions, and a complete absence of projects designed to limit
> 			       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > technology, or to standardize it for nefarious ends like Clipper.
>   ^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> I think you overgeneralize.  No limits on toxic waste incinerators,
>low-mileage automobiles, unsafe medical devices, genetically tampered food, 
>or nuclear reactors?  "Market forces" in such cases positively encourage
>dangerous technology (e.g. incinerators are superficially cheap) or are 
>markedby their inability to distinguish the good from the crap (e.g. medical
>devices).

It is you who have overgeneralized.  No limits on technology certainly 
does not mean allowing low tech and poor incinerators to continue operating.
The fact that low mileage cars still drive is a result of poor markets 
than anything else (baring colletables).  How would you argue that some 
low mileage cars are the result of a no limitations on technology policy?  
Unsafe medical devices?  I would say this is a problem with testing technology, 
not a lack of limitation on technological advance.  Genetically tampered 
food?  Why is this dangerous?  Have any evidence?  Most of the 
livestock/crops you eat today have been altered in one way or another, be 
it selective breeding, low tech botanical splicing, or genetic/hormonal 
therapy.  You see this as a regression?

You never make the distinction between regulation designed to promote and 
regulation designed to deter technological advance.  Clipper is clearly 
designed to set a standard and defuse the market which has advanced 
strong cryptography.  It is designed to WEAKEN technology, make it 
counter-productive to it's goal (in the case of cryptography, security 
against all attackers).  What lack of regulation does this?  Market 
forces are lathargic, sometimes they need a boost.  I propose this boost 
be accomplished with motivators like tax breaks, market assisters and 
privatization.  When Germany wanted to promote environmentally sound 
packaging and manufacture, they started a program called Gruun Punkt (The 
Green Point)  They allow manufactures to place the green point sticker on 
their products provided they meet XYZ specifications.  This is the way to 
promote technological advance, NOT by over regulation, centralization, 
collectivization and stagnation.  The pattern of the administration 
crippling markets because it is afraid it cannot keep pace is obnoxious.  
If we were to all keep pace with the Federal Government, we'd all still 
be wearing loin cloths.  Anyone who thinks the Federal Government is the 
driving force behind the majority of technological advancement (aside the 
space program and military hardware) needs to take a good look.

> 
> We agree about crypto, but not all tech is crypto.  :)
> 

I'm not even sure we agree about crypto, considering you don't seem to 
understand, or at least express the difference between Crypto regulation and 
emissions testing.


> =======================================================================
>      Crim Tideson                     Privacy is its own justification.
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: 2.6
[...]
> 
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 

-uni- Dark

-- 
073BB885A786F666 nemo repente fuit turpissimus - potestas scientiae in usu est
6E6D4506F6EDBC17 quaere verum ad infinitum, loquitur sub rosa    -    wichtig!