Re: Gee...

At  8:08 AM 4/28/94 -0700, Sandy Sandfort wrote:

>Do you think your fastidious compliance with the law will keep them from
>branding you a criminal, anyway?  Wake up.

Errr, no, but they'd still need to prove it.  Generally, it is easier to
get a guilty verdict when you have committed a crime than when you have
not.


>The whole purpose of wide-spread availability and use of strong crypto is
>to what "others" say or think, irrelevant.  Strong crypto means never
>having to say you're sorry.

I'm not arguing this point.  I agree.  I just think that people should work
to change the current government policy through legal means before
resorting to illegal measures.  I think we are seeing some sucess in this
area, with the hearings on Clipper and the push by at least one legislator
to ease the cryptography export restrictions.  We are getting reasonable
press coverage, which is growing.  Just like you only heard a bit about the
Internet a few years ago, but now you can't pick up a newspaper or magazine
without some mention of the Internet, you are starting to see articles
about Cryptography (like the WSJ article, or NPR's piece).

Bob

--
Bob Snyder N2KGO                                     MIME, RIPEM mail accepted
snyderra@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu                       finger for RIPEM public key
         When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.

C'punks,

On Fri, 29 Apr 1994, Bob Snyder wrote:

> At  8:08 AM 4/28/94 -0700, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> 
> >Do you think your fastidious compliance with the law will keep them from
> >branding you a criminal, anyway?  Wake up.
> 
> Errr, no, but they'd still need to prove it.  Generally, it is easier to
> get a guilty verdict when you have committed a crime than when you have
> not.

(1)  Tell that to the people who have had their assets seized and sold 
     without any criminal charges ever being made.

(2)  "Proof" and "guilty" are legal words of art.  Stop looking at them 
     in some ultimate sense of right and wrong.  Everyday, proof that 
     isn't proof is used to find people guilty who are not guilty.
 
> . . .  I just think that people should work
> to change the current government policy through legal means before
> resorting to illegal measures.  

No arguement there, *if* it works.

> I think we are seeing some sucess in this
> area, with the hearings on Clipper and the push by at least one legislator
> to ease the cryptography export restrictions.  

There are 435(?) legislators.

> We are getting reasonable
> press coverage, which is growing.  Just like you only heard a bit about the
> Internet a few years ago, but now you can't pick up a newspaper or magazine
> without some mention of the Internet, you are starting to see articles
> about Cryptography (like the WSJ article, or NPR's piece).

Press coverage is . . . "nice" but is it stopping the Clipper?  Is it 
guaranteeing strong crypto?  There are those among us who are taking 
actions that don't require winning the hearts and minds of politicians 
and entrenched bureaucrats.  Would you rather wait until it is too late?


 S a n d y