From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 21:06:15 -0800 (PST)
To: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com>
Subject: Re: Cats Out of Bags
Message-ID: <199701310506.VAA04697@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Sandy:
>> 
>> 1. it is unconstitutional to put a crypto genie in a bottle
>> in the first place.
>> 2. it is unconstitutional to make laws against ringing crypto bells.
>
>We do not disagree except neither of the metaphors I gave suggest
>anything about the "putting in the bag" part of the deal.  In no
>way does either suggest a right, power or even ability of anyone
>to limit any freedom.  They are mute on the subject.  Their sole
>meaning is that one CAN'T undo what is already done.  In the
>instant case, that means the wide-spread availability of strong
>crypto.

ability to use strong crypto is not "either or" but a matter of degree. the 
question is not "is strong crypto available", but, "how much harder would
the NSA's peeping be if ITAR was relaxed?  

the real question is, do we have the right to use strong crypto,
or don't we? if we don't then the government has the authority
to regulate it to its heart's content, *regardless* of whether
those laws are effective or not. cpunks seem to think that a govt
can only have *effective* laws. but there is obviously no such
constraint.

I think we need to approach it from the point of view that we
have the *right* to use strong crypto, and see if the supreme
court agrees. hence I'm very interested in the bernstein etc.
cases, which may be the ultimate breakthrough eventually..
there is no end to the blathering about genies, cats, or bells
that can sway the govt, but a single supreme court decision
can have a revolutionary effect.

again I still think the genie/cat/bell metaphor is a disservice to 
the cause, but feel free to defy me. 

just one crackpot's opinion, YMMV