From: roy@sendai.scytale.com (Roy M. Silvernail)
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 06:01:45 -0700 (PDT)
To: everheul@NGI.NL (Eric Verheul)
Subject: Re: binding cryptography
In-Reply-To: <01BBBA25.B6CD8860@port13.ztm.pstn.rijnhaave.net>
Message-ID: <961015.070923.9P3.rnr.w165w@sendai.scytale.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In list.cypherpunks, everheul@NGI.NL writes:

> BTW, some people on the cypherpunks list seem to think that you can't =
> fraude with a *voluntary* system. However, that is possible: when you do =
> not comply with the *agreed* rules of conduct then the phrase "fraude" =
> is appropriate.

If the system is *voluntary* and I do not *agree* to participate, then I
*cannot* be breaking any "rules".

> Can you imagine what would happen if governments would (help to) set up =
> a system that has no safeguards at all, i.e.  that could give criminals =
> all the anonimity and confidentiality they need? Governments can't =
> probably prevent criminals and the like to use encryption to stay out of =
> sight of law enforcement agencies, but they should not facilitate them =
> either. In the next few years all kinds of "standard" commerical =
> software will come on the market with all kinds of standard security in =
> it. I don't want criminals to be happy with Custom of The Shelf products =
> for security, let them work for their security.

Which they will, and presumably already do.  Therefore, your proposal
does not and cannot hamper criminals.  Therefore, your proposal only
hampers law abiding citizen-units' access to uncompromised crypto.

No institution can expect compliance from a sector of society that,
by definition, does not agree to or follow the social contract.
Therefore, any and all such attempts to do so must be for the purpose of
controlling those citizen-units that do abide the social contract.  To
claim otherwise is absurd.

> The bottom line is that law-abiding citizens =
> always have to give up some of their freedom to stop criminals (that is =
> why you have to have registration plates on your car, a lock on your =
> car, bicycle, house etc.). That is a fact of life; one I hate.

Registration plates do not "stop criminals".  Locks do not "stop
criminals" (although they might slow a criminal down).  Neither will
compromised crypto "stop criminals".  But all the above impinge on my
liberty.  Am I to give up yet another freedom?
- -- 
           Roy M. Silvernail     [ ]      roy@scytale.com
DNRC Minister Plenipotentiary of All Things Confusing, Software Division
PGP Public Key fingerprint =  31 86 EC B9 DB 76 A7 54  13 0B 6A 6B CC 09 18 B6
                Key available from pubkey@scytale.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBMmOCMBvikii9febJAQESvQQAk9SzgWf0ZB7pCtmH9MKmJk/DS21efDn8
1X5H2etWhNmfJ6QIg8IaMTElzBk98GxUG7qQSFsWdkZ28NAbURBATk9dYwWwM+Gf
/oyrzqCRZ/MxCV6RfDGQMc9BvznCl85yj35vCaFMcLs4yNokBBgsDbtz9mgi53pR
gYMgOwhVEQs=
=Pgp0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----