From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 16:03:52 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Book: The President's Eyes Only
Message-ID: <m0uDfdU-00091FC@pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 07:08 AM 4/28/96 -0700, rick hoselton wrote:
>I just finished reading "For the President's Eyes Only", 
>a book by Christopher Andrew. [stuff deleted]

>I suppose I tended to look upon ITAR restrictions on cryptography 
>as a sign of a power-hungry, self-agrandizing, government that has 
>lost track of the fact that its legitimacy depends on protecting 
>the blessings of liberty for its citizens.  That's partly true, 
>but there's more to it than that.  
>
>After reading "For the President's Eyes Only", I can understand that 
>many in government believe that they are protecting the public by 
>outlawing cryptography.  After careful reconsideration, I still 
>believe in strong free crypto, but it made me think very hard.
>I think that some on this list and in sci.crypt should be ashamed of 
>their ad hominem attacks in an area where reasonable people disagree. 
>
>The crypto-game is being played "for keeps".  Someday, all crypto 
>may be too strong to break, but for right now, many "bad guys" 
>(and whatever your philosophy, I bet you can find some) use weak 
>crypto, and this allows the US Govt. to know more about what goes 
>on in the world. 

Here's one reason why I object to this.  While "reasonable people" occasionally disagree about things, in the political arena my experience has been that the main reason they disagree is their differing VALUES, not the interpretation of those values.  For example,  if a person simply disliked the concept of freedom (for others, anyway) or wanted to maintain the power of an existing government against future reductions based on technological developments, he'd object to the deployment of good crypto by ordinary citizens.    One could argue that his position is "reasonable" given his value system, but in reality his would be a particularly hostile position with regards to my rights.

Yes, "bad guys" exist, but for most if not all of us the vast majority of those bad guys would have no use for crypto, and probably wouldn't be able to figure out how to install and run PGP.   Only a very tiny fraction of "bad guys" would benefit from crypto, yet that's all the government is talking about.  The reason is simple:  The government's "bad guys" are NOT OUR "bad guys", not at all.   The government is almost entirely uninterested in the common criminals who do most of the damage; it is focussing on the few people who are the biggest threat to _it_, not a threat to the public.  It is this self-interest that makes the positions of the government-apologists unreasonable, and worthy of our scorn.

Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com





 As long as Uncle Sam keeps his finger on a nuclear 
>trigger, I can see a strong case that knowing what he's doing and 
>not getting too surprised are (mostly) good things.
>
>There will be a price to pay when everyone uses strong crypto.  
>There will be great benefits derived, as well.  It will be very 
>expensive, but worth it.  If we want to make it happen sooner, 
>we should understand (and respect) our opponents in this debate.
>
> 
>Rick F. Hoselton  (who doesn't claim to present opinions for others)
>
>
>