From: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 17:38:45 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Freedom and Security
Message-ID: <01I49YEWVI5M8Y56P8@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


	Again, I would appreciate it if someone would forward this message to
Mr. Hatcher.

From:	IN%"angels@wavenet.com"  1-MAY-1996 09:47:03.01

>Every society has a social contract whereby the freedom of the individual
>is defined within the context of the society.  Freedom means your freedom
>to be who you want to be, think how you want to think, say what you want to
>say, hold whatever beliefs you wish, balanced against the Community's need
>for stability.  You may demand the freedom to kill those who disagree with
>you but no community will grant you that freedom.  But no one living in a
>community where murder is outlawed can serious claim that their freedom has
>been taken away by that particular law.  You cannot be free to speak your
>mind unless there are laws preventing others who disagree with you from
>killing you.  If it were permitted to kill those who disagreed with you,
>then no one would be free to speak their mind at all, for fear of the
>consequences.

	Quite simply, if freedom is defined by a social contract, then there
would be no need for a Bill of Rights. Protected freedoms are there because
even a democratically elected government - the closest thing to a determiner
of the "social contract" in the real world - cannot be trusted. For instance,
the current social contract in Germany would apper to say that some political
speech - that of neo-Nazis - is not permitted, and that this is not a violation
of freedoms. It is reasonably evident that this is not the case by any
true definition of freedom.
	Certainly, if someone can murder you for speaking your mind, your
freedom of speech may be restricted. But I again defy you to come up with how
many of the activities you oppose are violations of anyone's freedoms, as
opposed to violations of what most people happen to want.

>I am not currently aware that either your right to encrypt nor your right
>to use anon remailers is under threat, so why should I do anything?  But
>while encryption and anon remailing protect *you* from certain threats to
>your freedom, they are also being used for example to make the
>international trade in child pornography more effective and less easy to
>prosecute.  The technology itself is neutral and can be used or abused.
>That is why the focus should be on individual actions rather on the
>technology.

	It would appear that you are incorrect with regards to the right to
encrypt and anonymous remailers; such regulations and laws as ITAR restrict
this, as do some movements toward mandatory government-access-to-keys (the
eventual intended result of Clipper, which has certainly not disappeared from
the intentions of law enforcement and espionage agencies). I have previously
pointed out the ways in which the child pornography argument does not work,
and is only an excuse.

>My concern is not so much with network sabotage or infiltration (there are
>plenty enough organizations addressing that problem) but with personal
>safety within the Internet community - that means you, not your hard drive.

	I am not physically attached to the Internet; it is not possible for
my safety - as opposed to my hard drive's safety if I connected it - to be
compromised by the Internet.
	-Allen