home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!ininx!jkreznar
- From: jkreznar@ininx.UUCP (John E. Kreznar)
- Newsgroups: sci.crypt
- Subject: Re: A new encryption problem?
- Message-ID: <296@ininx.UUCP>
- Date: 17 Nov 92 08:14:49 GMT
- References: <1060.517.uupcb@grapevine.lrk.ar.us> <1992Nov13.075430.8494@cactus.org>
- Organization: Independence Industries, Los Angeles
- Lines: 33
-
- In article <1992Nov13.075430.8494@cactus.org>, ritter@cactus.org (Terry Ritter) writes:
-
- > In <1992Nov13.011516.27463@news.eng.convex.com>
- > gardner@convex.com (Steve Gardner) writes:
-
- > > What is this "society" you speak so blythely of?
-
- > The collected body of people who function under The Constitution.
-
- It excludes, for example, any person who does not consent to "function
- under The Constitution" and who strives to avoid accepting the
- so-called "benefits" of such consent.
-
- > Well, I'm not really going to get into the semantics of the
- > difference between "society" and "the government".
-
- That may be a serious error. It may well turn out that the delicate
- flower of civilization will survive only because of that part of
- society which deliberately and consciously avoids involvement with
- government. Cryptography is an important tool by which these decent,
- peace-loving folk can defend themselves from imposition by the
- collective.
-
- In <1992Nov13.094243.10343@cactus.org> you say "But what *I* think is
- pretty much irrelevant. The issue is what our legislators think, and
- the arguments we can make to support our case." This suggests that
- you are prepared to willfully concede to voters (or their agents)
- choices which had previously been yours alone, such as whether to
- encrypt your data. Not all people make this concession.
-
- --
- Relations among people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
- ---John E. Kreznar, jkreznar@ininx.com, uunet!ininx!jkreznar
-