1997-05-06 - Re: Pro-Crypto Arguments

Header Data

From: geeman <NOSPAM-geeman@best.com>
To: Alan Olsen <cypherpunks@algebra.com
Message Hash: a1bab221115b4e4528edc268e681bdd323cdfffc871e5a2b5e36185bb5694c2c
Message ID: <3.0.32.19970505224344.006b7a04@best.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1997-05-06 06:01:32 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 14:01:32 +0800

Raw message

From: geeman <NOSPAM-geeman@best.com>
Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 14:01:32 +0800
To: Alan Olsen <cypherpunks@algebra.com
Subject: Re: Pro-Crypto Arguments
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970505224344.006b7a04@best.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Such was the thrust of my question posed to the Senate hearings via netcast:
"Is secret speed protected speech"

For if not, then it is a simple matter by extension to require that all
communications be in the lingua franca of the listener, obviously
preposterous.

The respondent seemed to think that 'secret speech' is protected, but 
obviously there are counterarguments.

At 09:59 PM 5/5/97 -0700, Alan Olsen wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>The current line of argument in supporting crypto seems to fall into the
>"software as speech" (ala First Amendment) or Crypto as munition (and
>invoking the Second Amendment).  
>
>I think of Crypto as "Freedom of Language".  
>
>Imagine the uproar that would be caused if Jesse Helms (or one of his ilk)
>tried to pass a law that all conversations over the net or phone lines had to
>be in English.  (Or at least in a language understood by the cops.)  The
>amount of uproar would be incredible.  The courts have already ruled against
>this form of "language escrow".  Such rulings should apply to encrypted
>communications as well.
>
>Software is just the mechanism for the language of cryptography, it is not
>the language itself.  Just as in spoken languages, special knowledge is
>needed to understand the "ideas" being communicated.  The algorithm is (in
>part) that language.  (But in this case, you are able to speak to only those
>you intend, not to the world at large.)
>
>Of course, the question is whether this line of reasoning will work under the
>current regime.  Maybe, maybe not.  It seems a better argument than the ones
>I have seen so far...  Depends on how far the deck has been stacked against
>us.
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: 4.5
>
>iQEVAwUBM266uOQCP3v30CeZAQHU4wf9GePLzvloFC/zpM+uAmdzq+wCzASUt/vH
>0GP4v9DwLTYtWDp4O/o/ietk1tej4G/d1h2owpdHsGT1qkUXWIG8XUjWsTPblPsa
>0uS097K+fB7fP7+LUyrGWkaCwNMfqQ3gErhVfoRsQ6lJRhWE+6JiIcdgxC1OY7lg
>kknM3//51Avbk+7CcVH+flyvL7uKWFHJdKpthiSSfKSg9nKJrLUQJxOQaK7xkpXH
>4oFEKF1EApa2gFIPyTEM7Nd1Dp2PzcdNZrVHn2BmMP7eXeN4Jfkwoc31r95DPwpI
>L2uWEeRpNEs61qNtM8/gkKMXk5fP/vLl8ujDHaYXDOP6dA3CnSbGOA==
>=aN2p
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>---
>|            "Mi Tio es infermo, pero la carretera es verde!"            |
>|"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer:         |
>| mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!"  | Ignore the man      |
>|`finger -l alano@teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key  | behind the keyboard.|
>|         http://www.ctrl-alt-del.com/~alan/       |alan@ctrl-alt-del.com|
>
>
>






Thread