NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/sci/crypt/5171

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-21 | 5.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!randvax!edhall
From: [e-mail] (Ed Hall)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: PGP and real criminals
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Nov 92 08:06:11 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: RAND
Lines: 102
Nntp-Posting-Host: ives.rand.org

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve Gardner) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ed Hall) writes:
>>Present a clear and immediate danger, and most people are quite willing
>>to see some of their freedoms suspended in exchange for removing that
>>danger.  This is human nature, and centuries of democracy have done only
>>a little to modify it.
>    You seem to see this as a positive feature instead of something to
>       be fought.

Where did you ever get /that/ idea?  Good grief!

>       We have to prevent fear from wreaking havoc with the
>       democratic process.  Demons and ghosts are what despots use to
>       make people give up freedom.

--and fear of despots is what makes people fight for their freedom.  Thus
my argument: you need to find ways to illustrate the danger that are as
vivid as the demons you are being fought with.

>       People who give up freedom for security
>    never get either. Look what happened in Germany.  Is it so long
>    ago that we have forgotten?  Look then to Argentina or Chile.
>    When you give up a little freedom out of fear you end up fearing the
>    one who asked you to give up your freedom.  Count on it.  Talk
>    like yours doesn't make it any better.

Uh, I'm getting the funny feeling you didn't even listen, so how can you
possibly say anything about "talk" like mine?  I note that you carefully
deleted the parts of my message where I said I was offering what I thought
were the most potent pro-restriction arguments as a challenge, and /not/
as an expression of my personal opinion (which is pretty much anti-
restriction).

>>What secrets do average
>>people have which might require its use?  Remember, the institutions which
>>really need it, like banks, can be licensed for it, just like institutions
>>who need explosives, like mining companies, are licensed to use them.
>    Likening cryptography to explosives is one of the most egregious
>    examples of a false analogy used to incite an emotion response
>       that I have seen in a long time.

Great!  Other than righteous indignation, how do you counter it?  There
are no doubt some people who feel cryptography is /more/ dangerous than
explosives.  But that's not the point; rather, you are going to have to
counter such views with substance.

>       What secrets do YOU have?

Nothing that I feel requires encryption--nothing of a personal nature, at
least--and I suspect that a lot of people feel that way.  But that's
irrelevent, as I'm sure you'll agree.

>    Is there nothing you feel you have a right to conceal from prying
>    eyes?  I can't believe my "ears" sometimes at the things I hear
>    people "say".  Is this America? Are these the same Americans that talk
>    of sacrifice for freedom every time some scoundrel drags out a flag?
>    What happened to those who were willing to die for freedom, let
>    alone put up with a tiny bit of insecurity?  Do we deserve freedom
>    in this country?  Have we gotten so addicted to our creature comforts
>    that we are willing to sell our birthright for a hand full of
>    promises of security?  Promises that will be broken as sure as we
>    live and breathe.

Nice commentary, but it assumes that most folks feel cryptography is
somehow tied to their personal privacy and cherished freedoms.  I was
attempting to point out that this is likely /not/ the perception of
most folk.  Everyone has secrets.  How is cryptography relevent to
most people's secrets?  I'm not saying it isn't, but this question is
a weak link in your chain of argument.

>>Who has ever proposed outlawing unindentifiable files?
>    Several proposals here have effectively outlawed unidentified
>    files because they are indistinguishable from encrypted files.

Ah.  I don't think that the proposals you speak of necessarily have much
to do with any laws which are likely to be proposed.  By assuming
restrictions beyond those, you weaken your case since you can be
countered with "our law is much less restrictive than that."

>>Here is my point: until you come up with a way to explain to common
>>citizens how banning private cryptography will endanger them, you are
>>likely fighting a losing battle.  Much of what I've read in sci.crypt
>>has been preaching to the converted.  You'll have to do better by
>>finding demons as /immediately/ threatening as those of your adversary.
>    This problem is more fundamental than mere threats to cryptography.
>    The real problem is how easy people are fooled by despots who
>       offer security but deliver corruption.
        .       .       .       .
>       Clearly we have to turn our efforts to
>    innoculating the "common citizens" as you call them against
>    fear campaigns.  They always lead to repression and never give
>    the security they claim.  There are plenty of examples to educate
>    people with.

Well, I suspect that many folks here in sci.crypt would be happy just to
prevent restrictions on cryptography, for the time being.  Sending
America back to civics class is the long way around.  I agree that our
freedoms are underappreciated.  But is such education a practical
approach in this case?

        -Ed Hall
        [e-mail]