From: azur@netcom.com (Steve Schear)
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 18:41:33 +0800
To: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net>
Subject: Re: The Right to Keep and Bear Crypto
Message-ID: <v02130500ae787e7a5c41@[10.0.2.15]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


>> Steve Schear wrote:
>>I'm not a consitiutional scholar, but it seems to me that since the
>>government has already classed crypto as arms via ITAR and since the I am
>>guaranteed the right to bear arms I choose to bear the crypto of my choice
>>as part of my arsonal.

>Tom May wrote:
>I've argued since 1992 on Usenet and here that "crypto as arms" is a
>potentially dangerous tack to follow. (Others, including legal experts,
>have also argued this point.)
>
>Given that it is well-established, whether we agree or not, that the USG
>may restrict private ownership of atom bombs, nerve gases, CBW weapons,
>machine guns, switchblade knives, nunchuk sticks, and various other "arms,"
>the association of crypto with armaments is potentially *DISASTROUS*.

Unless we get the strong support of the gun lobby and NRA.

>
>A far better strategy is to associate crypto with *speech*, which most
>people seem to think has stronger protection. And, truth be told, I view
>encrypted communications as a helluva lot more like a form of communication
>than I view it as a cousin to my Heckler & Koch .45 USP.
>
>In my view, equating crypto with armaments is exactly what the USG would
>like to see happen. This legitimizes their control of crypto.
>

I agree.  However, if the forces of evil attempt to get GAK mandidated or
begin arresting or harrassing those who would provide strong crypto it
might an option.

-- Steve