From: blanc <blancw@accessone.com>
Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 08:29:24 +0800
To: "'cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: RE: The Anti-Briefing...
Message-ID: <01BB4970.70BB2BA0@blancw.accessone.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


From: 	Peter Wayner

[......]The fact is
that government enforced weak crypto is a tradeoff. We pay for
the ease of the police surveillance because we make life simpler
for crooks who make their living eavesdropping and circumventing
security systems. The big question is whether the tradeoff is
worth it.
...............................................................

"Government enforced weakness":  They try to do good for the benefit of all by reducing the individual's personal efficacy, until the nation is transformed into a mass of whining weanies.  Like sitting ducks, everyone is then in the position of being totally vulnerable to corrupt government administrators.  I wouldn't think that being of no practical use to oneself would be a valuable tradeoff, given such a (frequently recurring) potentiality.

If they really wanted the nation to be strong and secure, they would actively take up the task of providing "government assisted strength", advising us on how to protect ourselves, our property, our email....perhaps evern receiving "The Briefing", so that we could all be prepared to resist (or assist in resisting) threats from pervs and terrorists, et al.

(this "Briefing" reminds me of Atlas Shrugged, but in the opposite direction -  where instead of the targets becoming enlightened, their minds become closed.)

     ..
Blanc