From: snow <snow@smoke.suba.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 18:56:24 -0700 (PDT)
To: everheul@NGI.NL (Eric Verheul)
Subject: Re: binding cryptography
In-Reply-To: <01BBBA25.B6CD8860@port13.ztm.pstn.rijnhaave.net>
Message-ID: <199610160110.UAA02179@smoke.suba.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text


> Ulf Moeller[SMTP:um@c2.net] wrote:
> >Can you imagine that anyone would ever create a program that tries to
> >look like a conforming implementation, but generates invalid "binding"
> >data -- when it is so much easier to simply use PGP, and (if
> >necessary) disguise that fact using the government-approved encryption
> >software?  I don't, so in my opinion the verification process is
> >abolutely useless.
> 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 =

     You mean like Cash? The (in the US) green stuff that can be transfered 
with _no_ ID? That you can use to go down to the local convience store and 
get a money order with to send across state lines thru the US mail?

     Nah. Can't imagine what would happen with something like that. 


> all the anonimity and confidentiality they need? Governments can't =
> probably prevent criminals and the like to use encryption to stay out of =

     You could have stopped before the "and". 


> don't want TRP at all. The bottom line is that law-abiding citizens =
> always have to give up some of their freedom to stop criminals (that is =

     No, you DON'T have to. Laws make criminals, and Laws restrict freedom. 
Any law put into place to _prevent_ crime actually does the opposite. In 
what, 1907? Congress criminalized certain drugs (canabis & cocaine and some 
others) what was previously legal became a crime, and it's practicioners 
criminals. 
     If Congress criminalizes Crypto, I and others on this list will become
criminals. We will _become_ criminals to "stop" crime, and others will give
up their freedom to "stop" us from commiting "criminal" acts. 

     Your biggest fallacy (vis a vis crypto) is that criminals will _follow_
the law. They won't by defination, execpt as needed for their schemes. That
is why they are called criminals, because the commit CRIMES, not because they
follow the law. 


> 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. So the =

     The lock is there to stop criminals. The registration _plate_ is there
to allow the government to collect Taxes, and track people. There are serial
numbers on cars used in theft _recovery_ rather than theft prevention. 

> Cryptopolicy is not a binary discussion; although some posters on this =
> list seem to think so.

     The middle is defined by the extremes. I'd take the most extreme possible
stance, execpt that it is where I already stand, that the government is an
_barely_ necessary evil, and needs to be made an unnecessary evil ASAP. 

> You are absolutely right. However, as said above if governments (help =
> to) set up a security system then they should at least attempt to make =
> criminal abuse difficult. The lock on my bicycle is not really 100% =
> either (as I found out quite to often); if I'd no lock at all I would =
> have a lot more problems. Also, I am *not* for a mandatory system.

     If you had _no_ lock at all, and locks weren't avaiable, guess what?
Your bike would get stolen _less_ often because you wouldn't let it out of 
your sight (well, I wouldn't let _mine_, but I spent a LOT of money (for me) 
on mine, so...) 

     And no, a lock isn't 100%. Nothing man made is. Nothing natural is.

     Ask yourself this, given a foe with more resources than you, can 
you keep him _out_ of a given computer system? Not totally. 


Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
snow@smoke.suba.com