From: cypher@cyberstation.net
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 19:41:58 -0700 (PDT)
To: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Subject: RE: Binding cryptography - a fraud-detectible alternative  to
In-Reply-To: <199610131846.LAA20382@mail.pacifier.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.95.961013190316.4170A-100000@citrine.cyberstation.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




On Sun, 13 Oct 1996, jim bell wrote:

> At 11:48 AM 10/13/96 +0000, everheul@mail.rijnhaave.nl wrote:
> >To  explain the backround of "binding cryptography" once more; with
> >respect to (interoperable, worldwide) security in the information
> >society socities/governments have to achieve two tasks: 1. 
> >stimulating the establishment of a security structure that protects
> >their citizens, but which does not aid criminals.
> 
That is pure unadulterated B.S.  That is only a flimsy, ruthless pretext,
without any foundation whatsoever, to usurp human freedom itself.
The use of such "Chicken Little tactics - the sky is falling," is an
unvarnished absurdity. The sky is not falling, in the U.S. and a few 
other places, people are trying to protect their own unbridled oligarchies
and elsewhere, where such irrational tactics are being used, it is
only being used to disguise the real motive of maliciously
seeking to subject others to their will and power. 

Is it not absolutely, absurdly  dichotomous,  to say the very, very 
least, that China, Burma, North Korea, North Viet Nam, Iran, Iraq, 
Cuba, Germany, the Mossad, the FBI, the NSA, the CIA, the DIA, and various
others, who are otherwise mutually exclusive groups are completely
in accordance, in this joint effort to oppose strong cryptography? There
has to be something wrong, terribly wrong somewhere, and there is! Has any
of the latter group given thought that if so many of their adversaries are
in agreement with them on this issue, then there may be some compelling
reasons to  provide others with the privacy of communication tools that
will enhance,.aide and abet those who are seeking precious freedom around
the world?

If we prohibit strong, unbreakable, cryptography, we are depriving
a great number of our fellow human beings seeking such freedom from
tyranny, of an valuable tool that they can use in the pursuit of that
noble cause. Is that not far more important and far more precious to all
who cherish freedom, than some irrational fear of how criminals and
terrorists might use cryptography for malevolent activities? 

Who are we going to support? Those few who might use cryptography to break
the law along with those who seek to usurp liberty and freedom - or all of
the millions of law abiding citizens around the world along with those who
seek to free themselves from the chains of despotism. We cannot have it
both ways. It must be one or the other, and the choice is clear! 

If we allow the terrorists and criminals to control our future course,
then we all will become victims of those terrorists and criminals.
We have very little to lose, if anything, and a great deal to gain. The
balance scale is not even close!  
. 
> I think this is a phony distinction.   Practically every product sold today 
> could arguably "aid criminals."  It isn't possible to prevent this.  And 
> that's the problem with your thinking above:  If government argued that it 
> had the authority to regulate any product that, arguably, "aided criminals," 
> then it would automatically be able to regulate anything.
> 

Obviously, though I strongly object to Jim's espousing of anarchy
in achieving certain ends, in this limited instance I believe Jim is
absolutely right. If you are pregnant, you are pregnant; there is no such
thing as partial pregnancy or partial freedom  and security. Under such
arcane principles, we would all be at the absolute mercy of purely
arbitrary government regulations. 

The underlying reason that governments, or governmental agencies,  advance
the theory that using strong, and yes even unbreakable, encryption aids
criminals and terrorists is to perpetuate their oligarchical powers, be it
in Burma or here in the United States. Fortunately, in the United
States, at least the perpetrators rationalize that they are doing what is
right for all of us; nevertheless, they are using their "Chicken Little -
the sky is falling," tactics to protect their own personal empires too,
either consciously or subconsciously.. 

The sky is not falling, far from it, careful reflection reveals that those
who oppose strong, or unbreakable, encryption,  are always talking about
some vague potential threat  as opposed to real threats. Criminals and
terrorists will always find the ways and means to carry out their
nefarious activities, with or without strong cryptography, it might
take a little more time, but they will find the way to do it. On the other
hand, all of the other millions of us, 99.99%+ of the users,  who seek
only to advance ourselves and the interests that they rightfully serve
can never achieve our objectives without strong, unbreakable, encryption
technology. , nit to mention all of those who can use it for good and
noble cause which advance human freedom.

Would we ever consider outlawing automobiles because they kill tens of
thousands of people around the globe each year. Automobiles, drugs,
cigarettes, alcohol and other causal agents kill far more people 
and are far more dangerous, by several orders of magnitude, than
strong encryption technology.   

The benefits of encryption security and privacy far outweigh any
deleterious problems associated with criminals and terrorists. It is not
even remotely close.  

An information society must encompass the capability to have absolute
privacy and security if it is to achieve its promise to make us a better
world. One of those promises is that it will eventually free all humans
from the power of despotic oppressors. We must struggle but 'We will
overcome.' Freedom denied, except where PROPERLY tempered by the harm it
might cause to others, is tyranny; and preventing us from using
unbreakable cryptographical systems is an obvious denial of free speech
and every other freedom that humans hold dear.

TVM,

Don Wood