Re: Cats Out of Bags

Sandy:
>> 
>> 1. it is unconstitutional to put a crypto genie in a bottle
>> in the first place.
>> 2. it is unconstitutional to make laws against ringing crypto bells.
>
>We do not disagree except neither of the metaphors I gave suggest
>anything about the "putting in the bag" part of the deal.  In no
>way does either suggest a right, power or even ability of anyone
>to limit any freedom.  They are mute on the subject.  Their sole
>meaning is that one CAN'T undo what is already done.  In the
>instant case, that means the wide-spread availability of strong
>crypto.

ability to use strong crypto is not "either or" but a matter of degree. the 
question is not "is strong crypto available", but, "how much harder would
the NSA's peeping be if ITAR was relaxed?  

the real question is, do we have the right to use strong crypto,
or don't we? if we don't then the government has the authority
to regulate it to its heart's content, *regardless* of whether
those laws are effective or not. cpunks seem to think that a govt
can only have *effective* laws. but there is obviously no such
constraint.

I think we need to approach it from the point of view that we
have the *right* to use strong crypto, and see if the supreme
court agrees. hence I'm very interested in the bernstein etc.
cases, which may be the ultimate breakthrough eventually..
there is no end to the blathering about genies, cats, or bells
that can sway the govt, but a single supreme court decision
can have a revolutionary effect.

again I still think the genie/cat/bell metaphor is a disservice to 
the cause, but feel free to defy me. 

just one crackpot's opinion, YMMV

At 6:39 PM -0800 on 1/30/97, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:

> those laws are effective or not. cpunks seem to think that a govt
> can only have *effective* laws. but there is obviously no such
> constraint.

No such constraint in the _making_ of laws, of course. We have
laws on the books forbidding the utterance of "Oh boy", the carrying
of an ice cream cone in one's pocket, and the act of driving without
insurance, all functioning to varying degrees of effectiveness, 'on
the books' in various states.

The question Sandy seems to me to be raising is not whether a group
of people can issue a decree, but rather whether the interaction of the law
books, the interested parties on either side of the debate, and the mostly
disinterested real world will intersect such that the laws passed can
be used to effectively hamper the activities of the parties who wish
to go about the business proscribed. This is not an either/or question,
as you so aptly note (I hope Kirkegaard doesn't mind).

Of course, methods of this nature specifically regarding the uses of
privacy is what this list is all about.

Not an argument; just a clarification.

-j

--
"This analogy is like lifting yourself by your own bootstraps."
                                         -Douglas R. Hofstadter
_______________________________________________________________
Jamie Lawrence                                foodie@netcom.com