Re: A possible solution

At 8:33 PM 11/27/94, Aron Freed wrote:
>On Sun, 27 Nov 1994, Mike McNally wrote:
>
>> So why pick specifically on cryptography?  Why not increase penalties
>> for criminals who in their crimes are found to have used:
>>
>> *     computers;
>> *     pagers;
>> *     cellular phones;
>> *     Casio watches with multiple alarms;
>> *     Cars with power windows;
>> *     Velcro-fastening tennis shoes;
>> *     Gore-Tex jackets;
>> *     Ibuprofen pain relievers;
>> *     Fat-free ice cream;
>
>Why don't we stick to the topic? Do you have an intelligent reply or are
>you going to shoot your mouth off? Or Maybe you can share something
>better with us, all knowing and wise one.

Something better?  I guess most of us think that "something better" would
be _not_ having increased penalties for criminals who use cryptography in
their crimes.
I'm certain that this was the "something better" Mike was suggesting.
What rationale is there to have increased penalties for using cryptography
to commit a crime, any more then there should be increased penalties for
using computers at all?  (or do you think there should be?)  What reason is
there to have increased penalties for using modern technology over using
older technology to commit a crime? Using modern technology is somehow
"worse" then using older technology?

Should we have harsher penalties for someone that uses a getaway automobile
after a bank robbery, instead of trying to get away on foot? That might be
a better analogy to what's being proposed then Mike's sarcastic ones, if
you really want a good analogy. Automobile technology surely makes it
easier for a bank robber to escape from the crime scene and not be caught,
just as cryptography surely makes it easier for someone selling drugs to
close a deal without being caught. So if that somehow justifies harsher
penalties for crimes committed with the help of cryptography, does it also
justify harsher penalties for crimes committed with automobiles? Why not?

Ok. You all have basically defeated the stiffer fines issue.

The one issue remaining is do we want to live a life of anarchy. Do we 
want to live in total isolation? Do we want to be completely paranoid and 
be always looking over our shoulder? You tell me how we solve that 
problem. I for one do not want to touch "1984" territory, but I don't 
want to live in an anarchy either.

Aaron

Aron Freed writes:
 > The one issue remaining is do we want to live a life of anarchy. Do we 
 > want to live in total isolation? Do we want to be completely paranoid and 
 > be always looking over our shoulder?

Are you trying to say that the current ability of law enforcement to
access telephone conversations and e-mail is the only thing protecting
you from a life of paranoid terror?



Have you investigated the cypherwonks list?

| GOOD TIME FOR MOVIE - GOING ||| Mike McNally <m5@tivoli.com>       |
| TAKE TWA TO CAIRO.          ||| Tivoli Systems, Austin, TX:        |
|     (actual fortune cookie) ||| "Like A Little Bit of Semi-Heaven" |