From: s1018954@aix2.uottawa.ca
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 95 22:06:02 PDT
To: Black Unicorn <unicorn@polaris.mindport.net>
Subject: alt.paranoia.pgp.ban: long rerun (was Re: My chat with...)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.951015221121.29505A-100000@polaris.mindport.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9510152224.H11124-0100000@aix2.uottawa.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




On Sun, 15 Oct 1995, Black Unicorn wrote:

> in place.  Here that piece is, obviously, banning tomorrow's pgp.

Frankly I think that's what it would take for everyone to start using it
(not that I would on this multiuser account, that's what winsock and my pc 
are for). Just look at lsd, until it became illegal, only researchers and 
psychiatric patients took it. Strange things like crypto really become 
popularized (even through notoriety) when they "shouldn't" be had. Also 
seems like the only way to get any mainstream press. Bad press is better than 
next to none. BBrother schemes like clipper also generate lotsa mainstream
press. I can't wait for Freeh and Clinton to start making sweet 
releases about the sequel. Big ones. What's going on on that front anyway?

> > except as PR, why DO they still take this seriously? (unless you want to 
> > be paranoid about a ban, hmm, nevermind, debated-to-death)
> 
> I'm not so sure it's paranoid.  You have trial baloons floating all 
> over.  Freeh is a prime example, and no one is screaming loudly enough to 
> shoot down his blump.  That's a big'ole green light for regulators.> 
> 
Being paranoid is a prerequisite for being on this list in the first 
place :-)
But seriously, yes I do agree with you. We know just how much they'd love
to get rid of it. That being said, wasn't legal protection for crypto the 
reason EFF caved on the dreaded DT bill? (sorry, DT law. Yech, that's tough)
First they're going to have to get rid of that. How strong is the protection 
anyway? 

*Begin flogging dead horse* (not a Unicorn)
Flog

Fine, let's just say I don't think I it can stick, we could argue this 
back and forth and I'm sure it's been done before. We benefit from any
move towards a ban through a measure of publicity. We benefit once again 
from a ban due to programmers like Phil Z. getting terrified and outraged
enough to write code. PGP is the product of a previous attempted ban.
We'd be have PEM or RIPEM otherwise (with no-one using them). 
Flog

If there is a market to avoid american anti-privacy and subpeona regs, openly 
or in the black, this is where it will get its start. I understand that key 
signing parties are all the rage at ietf meetings. I think a lot of those 
people would be angry enough to go for a strong privacy IP before any ban 
went into effect. Remember the US is not the whole of the world. Go to 
Anguila or Vancouver or Montreal or Baja Cali...with those thoughts in your 
head, and you can have your cpunk ietf meeting and implement and 
distribute the code. 
Flog Flog Flog

And then there's the courts...

I think any ban of a "desirable" product is self defeating. Just look at how 
little popular and even police support the marijuana ban has. Even Newt 
admits to having tried. Unlike crypto, marijuana has a physical presence 
and requires transportation, even then it's also totally unenforceable 
(even though it lands a very large amount of people in jail). A lot of people 
OTOH support the ban on cocaine, yet somehow, supposedly crack only costs 
$5/vial in NYC, and is available in every city in the world. A crypto ban 
would be even harder than making people pay for all their software. 
Pirate software is illegal in most of the world. Are the fine legislators of 
North America, where practically all the software is written, totally innocent 
of this heinous crime?

It can't stick. Either outcome puts crypto and anonymity ahead in some way.

End of dead horse flogging. Sigh. Sorry for an overlong post.