From: douzzer@MIT.EDU
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 00:45:39 -0700 (PDT)
To: snow@smoke.suba.com
Subject: Re: AW: Binding cryptography - a fraud-detectible alternative to key-escrow
Message-ID: <199610170745.AAA12078@lechter.chautauqua.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


i'm neither nearsighted nor a fool. don't presume.

i can accept the tracking of fossil fuels, bleach, fertilizer,
sulphuric-acid-based drain cleaner, essentially any non-edible or
psychoactive chemical. clearly purchase of non-edible chemicals below
a threshhold quantity does not present a credible threat, so there's
no reason to invade the privacy of someone who's simply unstopping a
toilet, cleaning laundry, or getting a fillup. schedule the
threshholds so that it is not feasible to drive around to different
stores to collect enough of a chemical to make a threshhold-sized
bomb, for example. the only other way to know if someone has assembled
the ingredients of a bomb is through massive and insidious
surveillance, which is far more objectionable. the tracking is
implemented by recording the purchase in the database via a
point-of-sale unit.  i don't like it, you don't like it, but it's a
good compromise. would you prefer a simple prohibition on the sale of
the more sensitive types of chemicals? of course not.  am i proposing
that the above, or any other scheme or combination of schemes,
comprises a foolproof solution?  of course not.

i think you misunderstood what i meant by "tracking of all
automobiles." don't track where they are (that would be draconian),
track who owns them, and what model and color they are. as far as
tracking deadly weapons: if there were a unified database containing
the ballistic profile of every gun barrel sold, and relating with each
a physically tamper-resistant serial number and current owner, and if
every transfer of weapon ownership required a cryptographically
authenticated exchange with a unified clearinghouse to assure that no
gun is ever transferred to or kept by a convicted violent criminal, i
put to you that a huge reduction in crimes with firearms will
follow. moreover, legitimate ownership and use of guns is not in any
way curtailed by such a system.

"by saying MEAN THINGS, you are hurting people, and that is wrong."

that's total hogwash. your ideas of "mean," "hurt," and "wrong" are
not the same as mine, and that's exactly why i reiterate that
restrictions on what i can think, who i can speak to, what i can say,
and how i say it, are unacceptable. i am often offended and
contemptuous, and i expect to offend and inspire resentment just as
often, and that's fundamental to the human condition. it would be a
disaster of unrivalled proportions if a day were to arrive when all of
humanity is of one mind; fortunately that can never happen.

you got sillier at this point, but i'll finish up.

the government will not protect me, because the government is not
there when i am mugged, carjacked, etc. i know this as something real,
not as something abstract, but through a simple thought exercise it is
not hard to see that this is inevitable.

_prohibition_ and _tracking_ are completely different. the murder,
rape, and robbery of members of the community are prohibited in our
society, as in most (all?) human societies with written laws. a law
which forbids conduct which directly violates the physical or organic
rights of others is a legitimate prohibition.  regulation, e.g. by
tracking, is not the same at all.  i have already explained what i
mean by tracking: it is simply the concentration of data regarding the
transfer of (and therefore, responsibility for) substances and
machinery that when abused has a dire impact on the rights of other
individuals.

now on "the torture thing": i wasn't trying to be imaginative, to be
honest i just jumped at a chance to construct a trite paragraph like
that. it was fun for me; i hope you enjoyed it. as far as what i have
already been through in my life, i have no comments to offer. as far
as the susceptibility of others to have their wills bent by torture, i
have no doubt they are far more vulnerable on average than i am.

"just make it unnecessary to carry out terrorist acts."

it's clear to me now that you didn't take enough time thinking out
your flammage. "just make it unnecessary" is exactly what i am saying
here; if victimless crimes were abolished (and if the income tax were
abolished, which i didn't happen to mention), we'd be a lot closer to
removing the impetus for terrorist acts (and for any sort of
insurrection against the state). however, terrorism will never
disappear completely, because there will always be ethically
impoverished people who adopt agendas that are predicated on
domination and enslavement, and who manipulate weak people with
ideological psychobabble to get their way. that's why someone has to
track chemicals and killing machines regardless of the configuration
of laws.


what does cryptography have to do with all this toxic waste?

i am willing to forego a certain amount of privacy regarding the
weapons i own, the chemicals i buy, and the vehicles i drive, so that
i can have complete privacy regarding the information i store and the
conversations i have. of course, more obviously, i am willing to
forego a certain amount of privacy about my guns, cars, and drugs, so
that i can have and use my guns, cars, and drugs.

-douzzer

p.s. note that i am not on this list - i will not see a reply if you
don't send it to me.