From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 00:48:31 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <199707191635.SAA19503@basement.replay.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




TruthMonger <tm@dev.null> wrote:
>Joe Shea wrote:
>> On the other hand,
>> if someone's going to blow up San Francisco this week, it sure would help
>> to have a key to any encrypted communications he was generating.
>
>  Yeah, sure. I use an escrowed key to communicate about all of my
>criminal activities, and I send the FBI a cc: on all of them.
>  It sure would help if LEA's all had access to the American Reporter's
>files so that they could censor any writing that might encite someone to
>blow up San Franciso.
>  Why don't you send them all of your writing for approval, Joe? If all
>the people in favor of key escrow would allow the government total
>access
>to all of their communications, then the drop in crime would more than
>make up for that commited by those who use encryption.
>
>  If you can't afford to buy a clue, Joe, then try renting.

It seems that Mr. Shea is still a bit wet behind the ears when it comes to 
understanding how the world really works.  Listen up, Joe.  You might learn 
something here:

As TruthMonger correctly points out, no terrorist is going to use an 
escrowed key to encrypt info about his activities.  At least not as his only 
source of encryption.  He may first encrypt the message with one or more 
non-GAK keys and then use the GAK key for the final layer, to make the 
message look legit (i.e., "government approved") to anyone who may be 
analyzing the contents of email traffic, looking for "unapproved crypto."  
Therefore, if someone is plotting to blow up San Francisco, GAK will be of 
no help in preventing it.

Now the LEAs are not stupid.  They realize this fact.  Then why are they so 
adamant about implementing GAK when it will do absolutely nothing to prevent 
the very things (i.e., terrorism, child porn, [crime du jour]) it is 
supposedly meant to counter?  Because terrorism, etc. are not the reasons 
they are pushing for GAK.  The real reason is control: control over the 
citizenry.

You see, Joe, the LEAs have seen the future, and it has scared them 
shitless.  They see a world filled with ubiquitous privacy via strong 
encryption, privately-issued digital cash which transcends national borders 
and the taxman, and a digital world completely beyond their control.  The 
powermonger's worst nightmare is to lose his power.  He will do anything he 
can to maintain it.  If GAK is slowly, but surely implemented over the next 
few years, maybe, just maybe, the powermongers will be able to maintain 
control.  Or at least that's what they hope.

If not, then the self-righteous moralist will lie awake at night in 
frustration knowing that somewhere in the world, someone is getting off to a 
.jpg image of child porn, even though that image was generated digitally 
without actually causing harm to any children.  The DC politicos will be 
outraged that Americans are systematically moving their money offshore (via 
digital cash), out of the clutches of the IRS.  The media thought police 
will not be able to control the flow of information around the world, thus 
exposing the lies that they attempt to propogate as "truth."


Now, Joe, perhaps you are the kind of person that thinks dodging the taxman 
is wrong?  Perhaps you think the government has the right to force its 
citizenry to pay for things like nuclear warheads, abortion clinics, or 
bribes to line the pockets of Third World banana republic dictators?  I hope 
you are more intelligent than that, Joe.

You see, it's all very simple, but we humans tend to complicate things 
needlessly.  The fundamental question is whether or not we have the right to 
tell others what to do.  If I was to stick my hand in your pocket, pull out 
your wallet, and give all your money to a beggar on the street, you'd 
probably have me arrested.  And you would be completely right in doing so, 
because I unjustly took what didn't belong to me.  But this is exactly what 
the government does to us every day.  They force us ("voluntary compliance") 
to cough up a chunk of earnings to pay for their ridiculousness.  If we 
don't pay, they levy our bank accounts or seize our assets, all under the 
guise of "law."

The point is this: nobody has the right to tell me what to do.  No single 
person, nor a group of politicians claiming to represent "my best interests" 
has the right to force me to do anything.  I have the inherent (some call it 
God-given) right to live my life free from oppression.  If you choose to 
submit yourself to the slavery of another man, that's your business.  But 
you do not have the right to submit me to the same.

Anyone who believes that government has certain "rights" that an individual 
does not have is severely flawed in their logic.  In fact, that person is 
simply an oppressor at heart.  If you think the government has the "right" 
to stick its hand in my pocket to fulfill what you perceive to be "good", 
then you knowingly support oppression.  If you think government has the 
"right" to punish others who do not agree with your subjective moral code, 
then you are an oppressor.

So what are you, Joe?  Are you an oppressor or not?  It's a yes or no 
answer.  There is no middle ground.  If you think there is middle ground, it 
only shows that you sympathize with the oppressors, and therefore are one of 
them deep down inside.


Yours Truly,
Freddy Bastiat