From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 12:03:12 +0800
To: Black Unicorn <mirele@xmission.com
Subject: Re: OS/2 encryption utilities
Message-ID: <m0uAnQG-0008yqC@pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 06:08 PM 4/20/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote:
>On Sat, 20 Apr 1996 mirele@xmission.com wrote:
>
>> Due to the fact that I have been threatened by the Church of Scientology
>> with legal action if I do not cease and desist posting encheferated
>> parodies of their secret scripture (per a letter I received from Cult
>> attorneys via Federal Express today) I am in search of OS/2 disk
>> encryption programs.
>
>Were I a Co$ attorney, I would use this to bring discovery violations 
>if I took you to court.

You know, I've always thought it odd how some people misuse the English 
language when they speak in their chosen shorthand.  "bring discovery 
violations"?  How, exactly, does one _BRING_ a "discovery violation"?   
Like, maybe, bring it in a whellbarrow?!?   Is "bring" a proper word in this 
context?  Why not stop using that silly shorthand.

BTW, you seem to have forgotten that this would be an excellent way to deter 
the kind of "knock and smash" warrant service common amongst government 
thugs.  Any argument by the cops that "we must break down the door or else 
they'll erase the data!" is rendered obviously silly if the data is ALREADY 
encrypted and inaccessible. If anything, it would make the data permanently 
inaccessible since it would make (arguably) the release of a decrypt key 
"incriminating" if it were a criminal case. 

Yet another excellent reason to encrypt the data is that it deters 
burglaries, where the purpose of the burglary is to get this data illegally. 
 Given the COS's history, that is a reasonable fear.

Jim Bell

jimbell@pacifier.com