From: m5@vail.tivoli.com (Mike McNally)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 94 05:28:15 PST
To: Aron Freed <s009amf@discover.wright.edu>
Subject: Re: A possible solution
In-Reply-To: <9411272126.AA05054@vail.tivoli.com>
Message-ID: <9411281328.AA07328@vail.tivoli.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Aron Freed writes:
 > > So why pick specifically on cryptography?
 > 
 > Why don't we stick to the topic? 

!!

 > Do you have an intelligent reply or are you going to shoot your
 > mouth off? 

!!!!!

Ok, look Aaron.  You post a long note asking for comments and you get
some.  Seems to me you need to decide whether you really want feedback
or instead you just want people to pat you on the back and say "wow,
what a great idea Aaron."  If it's the latter, you'd better stick to
showing your little ideas to Mom.

 > Or Maybe you can share something better with us, all knowing and
 > wise one. 

My reply was completely serious, and I'd hope that someone pursuing an
education would understand it.  If you didn't (and so it appears),
then let me state my point again more simply: your idea is flawed in
that it arbitrarily treats cryptography as a technology that uniquely
demands a degree of "responsible use" so great that "irresponsible
use" must be specifically punished.  I think you should ponder why
that's justified instead of just making bald assertions.  I also think
you should consider what a precedent such a policy would set.  Once
it's accepted that irresponsible use of cryptography deserves extra
punishment, then why exactly should any technology (yes, even
including velcro!) not be similarly considered?  What would such a
legal structure imply?


| GOOD TIME FOR MOVIE - GOING ||| Mike McNally <m5@tivoli.com>       |
| TAKE TWA TO CAIRO.          ||| Tivoli Systems, Austin, TX:        |
|     (actual fortune cookie) ||| "Like A Little Bit of Semi-Heaven" |