From: Paul Spirito <berezina@qed.net>
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 02:43:29 +0800
To: seesignature@ceddec.com
Subject: Re: The Child Molester Prevention and Effective Sentencing Act
In-Reply-To: <v0300780fb051e6b8720d@[168.161.105.141]>
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19971006142118.007b3960@mail.qed.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



>What if you want to send a message to your child saying you will be late
>after school.  What is to prevent a pedophile from forging such a message?
>And if a pedophile intercepts such a message, couldn't he arrive 5 minutes
>early saying that "dad changed his plans again and sent me...".
>
>Now, Rep. Tauzin wants to make it illegal to listen in to any "private" 
>radio communication (yes listen, not just repeat), since Gingrich couldn't
>have access to encrypted communication and someone listened in on his cell
>phone.  One law prevents security from being available, so they think that
>a second law will prevent people from listening in.
>
>Repealing a law preventing fences is more effective than adding a
>draconian penalty for tresspass. 

I try to avoid "me too" posts, but I agree 100% with this. Somehow we have
to convince a bunch of legislators that technological solutions are
superior or legal ones in protecting info-privacy. Perhaps an analogy with
welfare might help (at least with conservative members): access to crypto
vs. laws protecting privacy is like private job creation vs. welfare. Do we
want to live in a state where we are mandated to rely on the government for
privacy (even if we could trust the government)?

Thanks also for the concrete example of how pedophiles could make use of a
parent's lack of encryption/signing.

Paul

Oh freddled gruntbuggly thy micturations are to me
As plurdled gabbleblotchits on a lurgid bee.