From: lunaslide@loop.com
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 02:40:26 +0800
To: Decius <decius@montag33.residence.gatech.edu>
Subject: Re: Why am I wrong?
Message-ID: <v01530500ad3cb62ed765@[206.138.118.156]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


I think there is a middle ground that you may have missed.  Let's see...

The cypherpunk view seems to be that eveyone *should* use forms of
encryption for passing packets along on the internet.  It works best when
the majority of people are using, but no one is forced to encrypt their
email.  People still send postcards, right?  No matter what percentage of
users on the net use encryption, there will always be those who will
exercise their right to send open, plain text messages.  It is our right to
choose *to* encrypt that we are fighting for, not a general mandate that
all use crypt.

As for the law's take on this matter, under the constitution, they have no
right to tell us that we cannot use encryption in sending our messages.
They also have no right to tell us that we cannot teach others how to use
it, develop easier ways to implement it so that eventually it will be a
no-brainer to use, say that we are criminals because we opt for our right
to privacy, or ask us to give up that right to privacy because we are using
a new medium.  One issue that may come up is that the law cannot make us
give our passwords so that they may use our keys to open our documents
because it would be self-incrimination, however, they can serve warrants to
search our software and documents.  In their search, they will be able to
try and break our passwords to gain access to the files.  If they cannot,
it is their tough luck.

I don't think that I am stating a position of cypher-anarchy, but
advocating a position of personal privacy guaranteed by the Fourth
Amendment.  I don't think that wide-spread use of cyptography would cause
anarchy.  Would foreign govt. be able to slpi stuff by our govt. because
they can use encryption?  Sure, like they aren't already doing that right
now.  The US govt. seems to be saying "Hey, no fair!  I can't see your
stuff anymore.  You can't do that!"  when all along, no one has been able
to see their packets because they are encrypting it.

There are still ways for them to gain access too.  Don't tell me they can't
set up peeping toms to record keystrokes.  Certainly they can do this on
ppl's machines.  It would be more difficult, but that is the whole point.
It should be sufficiently difficult for them to tap so that to tap freely
would be infeasable for them to do, just like steaming open every envelope
that comes through would be infeasable.  They can only go after the real
suspects because it is feasable to do only that.

In essence, what I am saying about the govt. is that thy are crying wolf.
They can still be efficient in their duties without wholesale access to all
the data streams.  They want the power to monitor far more traffic than
they could ever get warrants for and they know it.

I likewise invite you to chip at the cracks in my reasoning as it will
improve our arguments in general.  Freedom is power.  God save the Citizen!

Jeff Conn

lunaslide

On the meridian of time there is no injustice, only the poetry of motion
creating the illusion of truth and drama.
                                                Henry Miller

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6.2

mQBvAzD3EHEAAAEDAMVwZzXozPjX18mCenA5fJsdWZXcrhJCxPR+SoVCmR7d4ZVU
mwITzPTHo/GyLvJrWyk5YdhheczyY2VSawaMrCN/nWA7K9lwAylbKyPxqBhRYJ3C
2wi2uD5LY2wypNOQyQARAQABtB5KZWZmIENvbm4gPGx1bmFzbGlkZUBsb29wLmNv
bT6JAHUDBRAw+1bqS2NsMqTTkMkBAQkTAwCersFbCyk8O0MbGlNcZDAe24CLEWQ0
0C5EHni33W76UsG1bybcLsuMH6HVwLF7IqZivnzc7wkujYPQvCqn8HEYYTld8V9V
Cou4dOvA8kV7rHvAn/LuLx7DRruLFrRoPSk=
=OIT9
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----