From: "E. Allen Smith" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 10:58:19 -0700 (PDT)
To: everheul@NGI.NL
Subject: Re: AW: Binding cryptography - a fraud!
Message-ID: <01IAHAMJ46VK9S3RCA@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


From:	IN%"everheul@NGI.NL"  "Eric Verheul" 10-OCT-1996 07:31:16.85

>First of all, that (and the legitimacy of "wiretaps" in general) is 
>something that should
>be regulated in national law (including procedures, checks and balances, 
>penalities). Maybe
>you have the opinion that that is impossible to achieve, [or at least that 
>making wiretapping
>as such by government impossible is the only satisfactory way of doing it 
>(-; ]. Our concept
>assumes that it is possible and acceptable, although legislation (and 
>especially appliance of
>it) in some countries might be improved..

	I would be curious as to whether you believe that China should be
permitted to do censorship as part of "national law." If your answer is yes,
I would ask if you would believe that Germany's Holocaust was something that
should be permitted as a part of "national law." In other words, national
sovereignty is not something that should be permitted to override individual
liberties.

>Wait a minute. It is a *voluntary* system, but it has some rules that 
>apply. The whole
>idea here is: if you don't like it, use your own system. "Fraude" refers to 

	It is only theoretically a voluntary system; governments such as
China's, Germany's, etcetera could require that it be used with these
goverments as the TRA (or, essentially equivalently, someone licensed by
such a government).

>>Maybe I'm biased:  I'm a libertarian who believes that sending the wrong
>>bits shouldn't be considered a crime.  The problem we have is with the
>Depends, it might be childrens pornography. The information society is 
>*not* about
>bits, but about information.

	If the bits carry information, then restricting the bits is restricting
the information. I would point out that no harm whatsoever is being done to
children in the _distribution_ of such pornography; such harm is only done in
the _manufacture_ of such pornography (if, that is, actual children are used;
currently there are various efforts to make computer-simulated "child
pornography" illegal.)
	Quite simply, you've invented a system that makes censorship more
possible. As a scientist, I try to avoid areas that have such negative
effects; I won't work on biological warfare, for instance. I would like to
suggest that you follow such ethics also; you have not.
	-Allen