From: Eric Verheul <everheul@NGI.NL>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 08:24:52 -0700 (PDT)
To: "'roy@scytale.com>
Subject: AW: binding cryptography
Message-ID: <01BBBAB8.1B2CF2E0@port13.ztm.pstn.rijnhaave.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On dinsdag 15 oktober 1996 14:09, Roy M. 
Silvernail[SMTP:roy@sendai.scytale.com] wrote:
>-----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".

That is correct. Sorry that the BTW-statement is so evident. Some people 
did not understand that if you *do* agree, then you *can* 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.
I do not agree. For instance, the encryption possibilities of wordperfect, 
and MS-word are weak; my mail-system (ms-exchange) does not have any 
encryption at all. The security of these important Custom of The Shelf 
products can and will be enhanced..

>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 point is that public available systems should *aid* not them in their 
criminal activities, let them search for alternatives. Compare it with the 
legislation we have here on the sell of guns. You sort of say: hey, that 
does not help cause criminals will get it somewhere. I say, that is true, 
but it will make their lifes more difficult, or maybe I should say less 
easy.

>
>> 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?
Our system slows down criminals too, or maybe I'd better say does not speed 
them up.
Locking my house and my car, certainly limits my freedom too because it 
gives me
the risc of losing the key (happened a few times). Finding the middle of 
losing freedom by law-abiding citizens on the one hand and stopping 
criminals on the other hand is an important issue in any democracy. We 
believe our system gives a solution in which every democratic country on 
his own implement to their middle, without losing connectivity with 
countries that think otherwise.