A new Swiss banking novel

Greetings:

	This weekend I finished reading a novel that talks about many of the
issues of interest to this group.  It's Christopher Reich, "Numbered
Account," Delacorte Press.  The  author was a real Swiss banker for a few
years.  Now he writes a pretty darn good suspense novel featuring how
numbered Swiss bank accounts work.  In the cryptography debates, the FBI
makes a big deal about how anonymous bank accounts can be used by drug
smugglers, money launderers, international arms merchants, and anti-Western
terrorists.  They're all here in the novel.  So are the U.S. government
agents -- a bit bumbling, thoroughly obnoxious and self-righteous, but also
genuinely concerned about stopping truly bad people.  Reich also talks a
bit about a new crypto system the bank develops for handling secret
transactions.

	I think the book works pretty well as a story.  It also gives human faces
to the issues of bank secrecy, money laundering, and anonymous accounts. If
we are to find ways to have anonymity in cyberspace, we will have to
confront the bad things that anonymity can bring.

	I'd be interested to hear anyone else's reactions to the book.  More
generally, what do you say to well-intentioned people when they say the
following -- won't anonymous accounts contribute, at least a bit, to more
drug smuggling, arms smuggling, and international terrorism?

	[Please, no flames.  I am writing an academic article this summer on money
laundering and financial privacy.  Money laundering laws hold the potential
to choke off cryptography and financial privacy generally.  How can
supporters of privacy best answer back to the calls for stricter regulation?]

	Peter Swire


Prof. Peter Swire
Ohio State University 
College of Law
(614) 292-2547
http://www.osu.edu/units/law/swire.htm (includes draft book on European
Privacy Directive and Internet Privacy Page)

On Mon, 4 May 1998, Peter Swire wrote:

> Greetings:
> 
> 	I'd be interested to hear anyone else's reactions to the book.  More
> generally, what do you say to well-intentioned people when they say the
> following -- won't anonymous accounts contribute, at least a bit, to more
> drug smuggling, arms smuggling, and international terrorism?

	You say, "Yes.  Yes they could.  And so could cars."

> 	[Please, no flames.  I am writing an academic article this summer on 
> money laundering and financial privacy.  Money laundering laws hold the 
> potential to choke off cryptography and financial privacy generally.  
> How can supporters of privacy best answer back to the calls for 
> stricter regulation?]

	I dunno.  I guess the best way to answer those calls in the public
arena is to let people know that crypto is useful stuff that everyone will
need as transactions move online.  The shady argument that crypto &
anonymity can facilitate crime is merely an attempt to associate the two,
to give the public the impression that this crypto stuff is up there with
assault weapons and C4, something which can and should be controlled,
while not really affect law-abiding citizens. 

	I advise crypto proponents to halt any analogy-making to 
firearms, for this reason.  Nothing against guns, of course; but to gain 
acceptance crypto cannot be dropped in the same conceptual bin as guns.

							-Xcott

==-  Xcott Craver -- Caj@niu.edu -- http://www.math.niu.edu/~caj/  -==
"This is a different thing:  it's spontaneous and it's called 'wit.'"
                                                      -The Black Adder

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Mon, 4 May 1998, Xcott Craver wrote:
> 	I advise crypto proponents to halt any analogy-making to 
> firearms, for this reason.  Nothing against guns, of course; but to gain 
> acceptance crypto cannot be dropped in the same conceptual bin as guns.

And spin the same propoganda wheel as the Man? Not me. I don't see crypto
gaining acceptance among the masses out of fear.

Look.. saying "Bad guys can use crypto to not get caught, and they can
use guns to kill people, so lets outlaw crypto and guns." Isn't an 
argument based on reason so much as it is fear. "Bad guys" strike fear
into the hearts of people, and they will do anything to protect
themselves, including shooting themselves in the foot. For every 
bad point that can be found for private ownership of firearms a postive
one can be found. The same goes for crypto. Guns can protect us from
criminals. Criminals can use guns to kill us. Crypto can protect us from
criminals. Criminals can use crypto to protect themselves. The list can
go on and on, and in the end it all will boil down to freedom on the
one hand, and some sick, distorted view of safety on the other.

Fear is more persuasive than rationality.

The people will gravitate to the side that suits them. Freedom is a damn
scary sight, so safety is embraced. If you want to save crypto (and guns
too, btw) talk about freedom and privacy first and crypto second.
It probably won't work though.. just like talking about freedom and
the right to self-defense didn't work with firearms.

As for me.. I don't give a damn how many laws are passed and what sort of
punishments are put into the books: I'll use crypto, get M^S mod N 
tatooed on my forehead, and still say whatever I like. And if "they" want
to talk over my position with me in Room 101, they can take the issue
up with the .45 that I'm not supposed to have.

Michael J. Graffam (mgraffam@mhv.net)
http://www.mhv.net/~mgraffam -- Philosophy, Religion, Computers, Crypto, etc
"Let your life be a counter-friction to stop the machine."
			Henry David Thoreau "Civil Disobedience"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBNU5rxwKEiLNUxnAfAQGQ0wP/TD3tVmCDwthBnZE1nDaWDY2xzAPNfiMy
HyjyjfxNqYsmIsGpjpaqAWHC+e2qcfaYvPzpMqc0kNmIrFGHd5tA888aVnPbXSw1
0mBIVyITguplGQBLj9YiJk3TFYgU55rmOI3bGHkt/ytoH8CxBMHCOWEkUFR+C489
6GAj62wOO50=
=c7Pc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Mon, 4 May 1998 mgraffam@mhv.net wrote:
> On Mon, 4 May 1998, Xcott Craver wrote:

> > 	I advise crypto proponents to halt any analogy-making to 
> > firearms, for this reason.  Nothing against guns, of course; but to gain 
> > acceptance crypto cannot be dropped in the same conceptual bin as guns.
> 
> And spin the same propoganda wheel as the Man? Not me. I don't see crypto
> gaining acceptance among the masses out of fear.

	I don't think it's spinning the same propaganda wheel.  In
	fact, if anything, you're probably giving in to "the Man" by 
	letting this view of crypto persist.  That is, IMHO; since
	IMHO the feds are trying to push this view of crypto.

	The implicit connection between crypto and weapons is what 
	will allow the feds to cater to that fear to get it banned.
	Further, as many people simply don't own guns, many are
	easily detached from gun-related issues.  A large part of
	the CA smoking ban was due to this same detachment:  a large 
	non-smoking majority really doesn't give a damn about
	smokers' rights, because they don't see it hurting them.

	The TRVTH is that crypto will be used by just about anyone
	who does anything over an electronic link.  People will
	need it for friendly day-to-day transactions.  A crypto ban
	will be harder to push if people see crypto in this way:
	less like a gun, more like a car or a beeper; maybe useful to 
	criminals but useful in everyday affairs to law-abiding people
	too---nay, NECESSARY--and a silly thing to ban.  

	If you stick with the line that "crypto, like a gun, can
	be used by good guys as well as bad guys," you'll give
	across the opposite impression.  Rather than seeing crypto
	as something they want and will use a lot, many people will see
	crypto as something they probably won't even have in their
	house, something whose actual use is something to be avoided.  
	I mean, you could probably get steak knives banned in today's 
	climate by defending them like that.

							-Xcott

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Mon, 4 May 1998, Xcott Craver wrote:
> 	I don't think it's spinning the same propaganda wheel.  In
> 	fact, if anything, you're probably giving in to "the Man" by 
> 	letting this view of crypto persist.  That is, IMHO; since
> 	IMHO the feds are trying to push this view of crypto.

I understand this view, but I don't see the worth in whitewashing things
for the public. We've been fed enough BS already.. defending crypto
with ready-made arguments that sound good and don't conjure up images
of firearms is no different to me than spinning a long tale about
Iraqi terrorists and drug dealers that conjure up fear to support the
ban on weapons.

I'd rather speak the truth, so far as I understand it, and let it conjure
up what it may.

> 	The implicit connection between crypto and weapons is what 
> 	will allow the feds to cater to that fear to get it banned.

I understand this. They've got us good. Those that would ban crypto 
would have the public believe that we are all a bunch of crazy, paranoid
math/computer geeks and that the FBI, NSA and their ilk can protect
the public from harm (and us?). That fear will always get fed upon.
That fear will be used to twist things all out of shape until they seem
to be a negative image of what is really there. This happens all the time.

If we are going to combat this stuff, it is going to have to be by
fighting that fear, and not throwing around horse-shit arguments like
big business and the government do. 

If we are going to ease the fear of _guns_, then responsible adults need
to start (or further) gun clubs. Larger clubs need to take part in civic
events to show the people by their actions that they aren't a bunch of
lunatics who shoot at everything that moves. Such clubs need to work with
civilian watch organizations and the police to train citizens to respect
firearms and to help get illegal weapons off the streets. 

Cypherpunks need to write code. We need to show people that strong crypto
isn't just some obscure technology used to lock away kiddie porn and
transmit super-spy doomsday messages. We need to get good, user friendly,
applications to do document signing, watermarking, email encryption, bulk
file encryption, and countless other tasks. These applications have to
be usable; they have to integrate in with the user's desktop and ordinary
applications (MS Word, Photoshop, etc) as well as possible. 

I think that we all know that the uses and benefits of strong crypto
far outweigh the drawbacks. The uses are there, today. If we could plug
strong crypto into the desktop; if the "Kick-ass-military-grade crypto ON"
button were a click away from "Save as.." and if all that were sitting
on John Q. User's naked Cindy Crawford desktop picture, then it would
become as friendly to them as any other feature MS Word, and soon enough
the very statement "Bad guys use crypto" begins to sound dumb because
the fear isn't there anymore.

Fundamentally fear is irrational. The best arguments in the world won't
speak to an irrational person. You have to ease those fears with actions.

Again.. cypherpunks write code.

> 	The TRVTH is that crypto will be used by just about anyone
> 	who does anything over an electronic link.  People will
> 	need it for friendly day-to-day transactions.

Absolutably. I just don't think that they will get this by talking
about how crypto can be used in friendly day-to-day transactions.

>  A crypto ban will be harder to push if people see crypto in this way:
> 	less like a gun, more like a car or a beeper; maybe useful to 
> 	criminals but useful in everyday affairs to law-abiding people
> 	too---nay, NECESSARY--and a silly thing to ban.  

Cheers! :)

> 	If you stick with the line that "crypto, like a gun, can
> 	be used by good guys as well as bad guys," you'll give
> 	across the opposite impression.

But it can. Just like a beeper or a car can. Just like any sort of
technology can. This is the truth, and I'm not in the business of
lying.

When John Q. America tells me that drug dealers use guns, I'll agree
and point to the police officers (damn.. not real good example, but
you get the idea :)

When they quiver in their boots because of IDEA or CAST and tell me
that bad guy Y uses crypto to hide his world domination plans, I'll
agree, and then I'll point to the U.S. defense messaging system.

> 	I mean, you could probably get steak knives banned in today's 
> 	climate by defending them like that.

I'm sure you are right.. but defending them like that is the _truth_
any technology _can_ be used for good or evil.. we have to stop the
people, not the technology. Even though your method may work a little
more efficiently, it tries to cover over the truth; to hide it.

I can't do that. Covering up the truth is a step away from denying it..
an easy step to make going down, but it is one hell of a hard climb
coming back up.

I'll take my chances with C, and maybe some Perl if I'm lucky. If things
really get hairy, I can always resort to the tatoo and the .45

Michael J. Graffam (mgraffam@mhv.net)
http://www.mhv.net/~mgraffam -- Philosophy, Religion, Computers, Crypto, etc
"Let your life be a counter-friction to stop the machine."
			Henry David Thoreau "Civil Disobedience"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBNU6LygKEiLNUxnAfAQEiXwQAos6MRfoG1zPXfEvcPD5Qp4P/oXImd1IG
Rf4nphQpsla6aqLl4mh618CJ2iOb4wXV+f0JWcge4GQKVULxC3LeqhtJp25uToMc
rAzUg7LrjIkKaB0j8sWmE+7zGuvX7fzDxT+k3UkXFArwS5ZRrGTW0Ec1h8fkA8Ic
Ccft2AXDk+I=
=LjLm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Mon, 4 May 1998 mgraffam@mhv.net wrote:
> On Mon, 4 May 1998, Xcott Craver wrote:
> 
> I understand this view, but I don't see the worth in whitewashing things
> for the public. We've been fed enough BS already.. defending crypto
> with ready-made arguments that sound good and don't conjure up images
> of firearms is no different to me than spinning a long tale about
> Iraqi terrorists and drug dealers that conjure up fear to support the
> ban on weapons.

	I'm not advocating "ready-made" arguments.  Rather, I'm 
	suggesting that we get rid of an *analogy*.  An analogy isn't
	the truth.  In this case, it's a way to frame the truth 
	for non-technical people.  Dropping an analogy is subtracting
	BS, not adding it.

	Now, I'm not saying analogies are evil, but the analogy
	to firearms is a *bad* one, and it stands to give people
	the misconception that crypto is many things that it is 
	not (not to mention including <stigma.h>).

	If you want to analogize crypto to something, analogize
	it to something crypto is more like.  

> > 	The implicit connection between crypto and weapons is what 
> > 	will allow the feds to cater to that fear to get it banned.
> 
> I understand this. They've got us good. Those that would ban crypto 
> would have the public believe that we are all a bunch of crazy, paranoid
> math/computer geeks

	Well, after all, once we perfect the neural interface, we _will_ 
	all become munitions.

> If we are going to combat this stuff, it is going to have to be by
> fighting that fear, and not throwing around horse-shit arguments like
> big business and the government do. 

	You can't fight fear unless you remove some misconceptions.
	The association with firearms (which is in turn associated
	by the gov't to baaad things) is only going to cause 
	misconceptions in the public arena.	

> If we are going to ease the fear of _guns_, then responsible adults need
> to start (or further) gun clubs. 

	This is, IMHO, the wrong way to remove the fear caused by
	the crypto-firearm analogy.  The right way is to drop the 
	analogy, because it's flawed.  I agree that people should
	be less afraid of guns, but you just don't have TIME to cure
	that, if you can at all.

> I think that we all know that the uses and benefits of strong crypto
> far outweigh the drawbacks. The uses are there, today. If we could plug
> strong crypto into the desktop; if the "Kick-ass-military-grade crypto ON"
> button were a click away from "Save as.." and if all that were sitting
> on John Q. User's naked Cindy Crawford desktop picture, then it would
> become as friendly to them as any other feature MS Word, and soon enough
> the very statement "Bad guys use crypto" begins to sound dumb because
> the fear isn't there anymore.

	..As will the phrase, "cryptography is like a gun...."  Joe User
	won't see authentication as "like a gun" any more than his telephone
	is "like a gun."

> > 	If you stick with the line that "crypto, like a gun, can
> > 	be used by good guys as well as bad guys," you'll give
> > 	across the opposite impression.
> 
> But it can. Just like a beeper or a car can. Just like any sort of
> technology can. This is the truth, and I'm not in the business of
> lying.

	?!!?!!!

	The phase, "now, bad guys can use this to kill you just like 
	a gun, but responsible law-abiding citizens can use it too"
	is true for ALL solid objects larger than a breadbox.  You
	do NOT say this, however, when selling someone a halogen lamp
	or a Tickle-me-Elmo doll, or introducing them to anything
	new that they should have at home.  This doesn't make you a 
	liar.

	It is chillingly naive to defend an argument on the grounds
	that when dissected logically it is a true statement.  
	Do you approve of the government repeatedly warning people that 
	"crypto can be used by terrorists!"  It is, after all, a true 
	statement!  How about the next time you walk through airport 
	security you say, "I could have concealed explosives in my pants."  
	True statement, and you're not in the business of lying.  Would you 
	consider yourself less honest for not saying it?

	See, whatever the truth value of the statement, the end
	result is the suggestion of a lie.  

> I'm sure you are right.. but defending them like that is the _truth_
> any technology _can_ be used for good or evil.. we have to stop the
> people, not the technology. Even though your method may work a little
> more efficiently, it tries to cover over the truth; to hide it.

	Dropping a flawed analogy isn't covering the truth.  Rather,
	keeping the analogy distorts the truth.  It scares and 
	alienates people and makes them think cryptography is this
	weird stuff they'll never personally use which is less
	like a PIN number on steroids and more like plastique.
	And this is the last thing we need.

> Michael J. Graffam (mgraffam@mhv.net)

						-Xcott

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Tue, 5 May 1998, Xcott Craver wrote:
> 	I'm not advocating "ready-made" arguments.  Rather, I'm 
> 	suggesting that we get rid of an *analogy*.  An analogy isn't
> 	the truth.

Agreed. The analogy is not the truth, however, it is true firearms,
beepers, cars and another other technology can be used for good or evil.
To treat crypto differently than these other technologies merely because
we have an interest in it is less than desirable. 

What I advocate is to present the view that the technology in all forms
be advanced, and where appropriate disclosed. Undisclosed BS crypto
algorithms have hurt us for to long. Bad design in the telephone system
has done the same. I advocate full disclosure and advancement. When
those who are scared of these things try to leverage fear against it
by saying that undesirable can/will use it, I will not deny this, because
it is true. 

Having said that, I don't really think it is necessary to go around
saying "Crypto is like a bomb" either. Crypto _can_ be used as a defensive
or an offensive weapon, however the same technology can be used for
authentication and digital cash and loads of other neat stuff. I'll
preach about all of them, especially those that I personally have an
interest in.. authentication, digital cash and secure email. 

> 	If you want to analogize crypto to something, analogize
> 	it to something crypto is more like.  

There is a reason that militaries have long used spears and crypto.
I do not mean this statement to conjure fear, but it is true that
crypt can be used as a weapon; it is, after all classified as a
munition, and for good reason when looking for the government's POV.
Certain analogies are useful in certain instances. When useful to
make the analogy to firearms, it _can_ be an excellent one.. so can
a lock. 

Last time I checked though, padlocks aren't a hot topic for debate as
to their being banned. Crypto, in certain aspects, is.

> 	..As will the phrase, "cryptography is like a gun...."  Joe User
> 	won't see authentication as "like a gun" any more than his telephone
> 	is "like a gun."

Right. But I don't trust words to get it done. Most people will believe
what they are told. And I can't scream as loud as the machine.

> 	The phase, "now, bad guys can use this to kill you just like 
> 	a gun, but responsible law-abiding citizens can use it too"
> 	is true for ALL solid objects larger than a breadbox.

Exactly. Which is _precisely_ the reason why outlawing things on the
basis that criminals can use them is insane.

>  You
> 	do NOT say this, however, when selling someone a halogen lamp
> 	or a Tickle-me-Elmo doll, or introducing them to anything
> 	new that they should have at home.  This doesn't make you a 
> 	liar.

No, I dont offer it up because it is irrelevent.. as you say, the same
is true for a breadbox. But if asked point-blank if some technology
can be used for crime Y, I'll admit it if it is true, and then I'll
show the foolishness of this line of thought.. and I'd make that point
that if we take this line of thought to its conclusion we must get
rid of everything larger than a breadbox.

And, after all that, if we are talking about controversial technologies,
individual freedoms and the like, I may just bring up firearms because
it is a technology that is in the same boat as crypto. A munition that
is getting a whole lot of attention.

> 	It is chillingly naive to defend an argument on the grounds
> 	that when dissected logically it is a true statement.  

Are you suggesting that I should defend and argument, when looked at
logically is false?

> 	Do you approve of the government repeatedly warning people that 
> 	"crypto can be used by terrorists!"  It is, after all, a true 
> 	statement!

Yes, it is a true statement.. and so is "crypto can be used by nice old
grandma's to exchange email with the grandkids in NY." Do I approve of
the gov't saying X? Only if they also say it's compliment (which is
equally true) else they are misrepresenting what is true by being
biased. One can take many true statements and present them in a way to
make things seem to be what they are not.

> 	Dropping a flawed analogy isn't covering the truth.  Rather,
> 	keeping the analogy distorts the truth.

See, I don't think that the analogy to weaponry is all that far off.
The exact same software that could let me sign my documents or
order neat stuff over the web can use the exact same algorithms
for transmitting designs for bombs.

Lets face it. Weaponry _is_ a double-edged sword.. so is crypto.
If we say that we want to bring every criminal to justice in the
most efficient way with no regard to anything else, then we should
get rid of crypto.. its as simple as that.. thats pretty obvious.

However, it is also true that weaponry has a good side.. it can
protect us against those criminals that we don't bring to justice.

Crypto has even bigger advantages.. it is _the_ technology that
can fuel completely new ways of commerce and communication..
and it can protect us from the bad guys too.. and, statistically,
a whole helluvalot better than guns can at that.

I don't think that we should make crypto out to be different from
guns in that they are completely different, because there are a lot
of similarities .. how they have been used historically, some of the
pros and cons, etc. This is a very real concern. 

Let me ask you. If you were held hostage, which would you rather have
your captor's exchange of information encrypted with, IDEA or an
aristocrat? What would you rather have the criminals run around with,
guns or clubs? 

The answers are simple, if all we value is our safety.. but this is
what I have tried to convey.. for both of these technologies, crypto and
weaponry.. the reasons for having them around far surpass our concerns
for safety from bad guys. 

I think that weaponry and crypto are related. They both have direct
military uses, and they both have direct civilian uses. Both are
controversial. I think that the analogy between them can be a good
one, in some circumstances. 

Right now, I think that crypto is in a position similar to where firearms
were (minus the hostile environment) during times of exploration in days
past. It stands as a technology that is capable of serving us in a
variety of powerful ways during a time where its application is
vitally important. 
 
Michael J. Graffam (mgraffam@mhv.net)
http://www.mhv.net/~mgraffam -- Philosophy, Religion, Computers, Crypto, etc
"Let your life be a counter-friction to stop the machine."
			Henry David Thoreau "Civil Disobedience"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBNU7FIgKEiLNUxnAfAQGKQAP9FKyuQeQol3iWzmKt/DvpfVa0q5wmniyK
+8G2+RREtnuCvDF2G13Ik09qMk/+0Ylv5c8IEmPk42p7G19im6W6uu1iGheO1RPn
096mfALKLGVkbXina6d8TsvjQvlhJ++ls+4eKSYOHhppptdsrcC+xqHwB+DqxMNH
SOJeEPkKZho=
=0ylt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Tue, 5 May 1998 mgraffam@mhv.net wrote:

> Having said that, I don't really think it is necessary to go around
> saying "Crypto is like a bomb" either. Crypto _can_ be used as a defensive
> or an offensive weapon, however the same technology can be used for
> authentication and digital cash and loads of other neat stuff. I'll
> preach about all of them, especially those that I personally have an
> interest in.. authentication, digital cash and secure email. 

	Which is my point.  Crypto can be seen as a weapon, just like 
	it can be seen as a very strong safe.  The public doesn't have
	a very strong conception of what this crypto stuff _is_, and
	so they're going to suck a lot more than you intended out of 
	whatever analogy you pick.  If you say "bomb," they'll think
	"bomb."  And this generates misconceptions.

> Certain analogies are useful in certain instances. When useful to
> make the analogy to firearms, it _can_ be an excellent one.. so can
> a lock. 
> 
> Last time I checked though, padlocks aren't a hot topic for debate as
> to their being banned. Crypto, in certain aspects, is.

	Again, my point.  Padlocks and safes are *not* under the gun,
	so to speak.  People will not see crypto regulation as silly
	if they keep getting fed bomb and gun analogies.  They'd think
	it was damned silly if they got padlock and safe analogies.
	Remember, many people are still fuzzy about just what this stuff 
	is that the govt. is trying to regulate.  

	I mean, when's the last time you saw someone defending their
	choice of buying a padlock?  Or saying that, "look, a padlock
	_can_ be used by criminals, but I'm a responsible adult."
	Nobody thinks of evil terrorists when they see a padlock on
	the store shelf, and that's the way it should be with crypto.

> > 	It is chillingly naive to defend an argument on the grounds
> > 	that when dissected logically it is a true statement.  
> 
> Are you suggesting that I should defend and argument, when looked at
> logically is false?

	Not at all.  Nobody's suggesting that anyone lie.  Rather:
	
> One can take many true statements and present them in a way to
> make things seem to be what they are not.

	...and one can do this by accident as well.  I believe that
	telling people crypto is "like a gun" is exactly this.  And
	this is why I feel the firearm analogies should be dropped
	when explaining crypto to people.  

> > 	Dropping a flawed analogy isn't covering the truth.  Rather,
> > 	keeping the analogy distorts the truth.
> 
> See, I don't think that the analogy to weaponry is all that far off.
> The exact same software that could let me sign my documents or
> order neat stuff over the web can use the exact same algorithms
> for transmitting designs for bombs.

	Then envelopes are weapons.  Stamps are weapons.  Fax
	machines are weapons.

	Now, I know, you're thinking, "yes, technically, they are."
	But remember, again, that we're talking about explaining
	the concept of crypto to people who are pretty much new
	to it.  They have no idea how literal your analogy is.
	The phrase, "the pen is mightier than the sword"
	would have a wholly different effect on people if they
	had no idea what a "pen" was.

  .,-:::::   :::.         ....:::::: @niu.edu -- http://www.math.niu.edu/~caj/
,;;;'````'   ;;`;;     ;;;;;;;;;````
[[[         ,[[ '[[,   ''`  `[[.     "I'd like a large order of FiboNachos."
$$$        c$$$cc$$$c ,,,    `$$      "Okay sir, that'll cost as much as a
`88bo,__,o, 888   888,888boood88    small order and a medium order combined."
  "YUMMMMMP"YMM   ""` "MMMMMMMM"  _____________________________________________

At 6:19 PM -0700 5/4/98, Edwin E. Smith wrote:

>I agree completely. While I support the right to own guns (and nukes)
>by anyone, guns can be used both ofensively and defensevely while
>crypto can only be used defensevely.
>
>That is unless you put PGP on a stack of diskettes, glue them
>together and whack somebody with them.

Sorry, but this is nonsense.

Crypto can and has been used just like any other weapon. The freedom
fighters in Burma who use PGP to communicate securely and to plan bombings
against their oppressors...how can this be said to be "only defensive"?

I've said this many times, so I won't spend more time here. All "defensive"
weapons have "offensive" uses. Even shields, even armor, even crypto.

To think otherwise is to show no awareness of history.


--Tim May


"The tree of liberty must be watered periodically with the blood of
tyrants...."
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Licensed Ontologist              | black markets, collapse of governments.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

At 04:04 PM 5/4/98 -0400, you wrote:
>Greetings:
>
>	This weekend I finished reading a novel that talks about many of 
the
>issues of interest to this group.  It's Christopher Reich, "Numbered
>Account," Delacorte Press.  The  author was a real Swiss banker for 
a few
>years.  Now he writes a pretty darn good suspense novel featuring 
how
>numbered Swiss bank accounts work.  In the cryptography debates, the 
FBI
>makes a big deal about how anonymous bank accounts can be used by 
drug
>smugglers, money launderers, international arms merchants, and anti-
Western
>terrorists.  They're all here in the novel.  So are the U.S. 
government
>agents -- a bit bumbling, thoroughly obnoxious and self-righteous, 
but also
>genuinely concerned about stopping truly bad people.  Reich also 
talks a
>bit about a new crypto system the bank develops for handling secret
>transactions.
>


Excuse me for asking, but what's so bad about "drug smugglers, money 
launderers, international arms merchants, and anti-Western 
terrorists."

Edwin E. Smith

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv

iQA/AwUBNU5m0UmNf6b56PAtEQJ9+wCfRNVsy7MEcbeQ7H5UZswN4aUqP6AAnipg
QbOt7mM01LbEyIqOwG2DE83l
=+S8l
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


When freedom is outlawed.......Only outlaws will be free!

If cryptography is outlawed, pomz pvumbxt xjmm ibwf dszquphsbqiz.

Fun! Fast! Revealing! Try "The World's Smallest Political Quiz" at:
   http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html

IS AIDS A GOVERNMENT/DRUG COMPANY HOAX?
   http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/index.htm

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

At 06:11 PM 5/4/98 -0500, you wrote:
>	I advise crypto proponents to halt any analogy-making to 
>firearms, for this reason.  Nothing against guns, of course; but to 
gain 
>acceptance crypto cannot be dropped in the same conceptual bin as 
guns.
>
>							-Xcott


I agree completely. While I support the right to own guns (and nukes) 
by anyone, guns can be used both ofensively and defensevely while 
crypto can only be used defensevely.

That is unless you put PGP on a stack of diskettes, glue them 
together and whack somebody with them.

Edwin

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv

iQA/AwUBNU5pNUmNf6b56PAtEQLOFQCgvJ2MpcZ6or2bFKdoXc4NRyPn70IAni/X
WOf+RzpEgwuIXGEVoHi9DKSa
=b+pp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


When freedom is outlawed.......Only outlaws will be free!

If cryptography is outlawed, pomz pvumbxt xjmm ibwf dszquphsbqiz.

Fun! Fast! Revealing! Try "The World's Smallest Political Quiz" at:
   http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html

IS AIDS A GOVERNMENT/DRUG COMPANY HOAX?
   http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/index.htm

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

At 07:43 PM 5/4/98 -0700, you wrote:
>At 6:19 PM -0700 5/4/98, Edwin E. Smith wrote:
>
>>I agree completely. While I support the right to own guns (and 
nukes)
>>by anyone, guns can be used both ofensively and defensevely while
>>crypto can only be used defensevely.
>>
>>That is unless you put PGP on a stack of diskettes, glue them
>>together and whack somebody with them.
>
>Sorry, but this is nonsense.
>
>Crypto can and has been used just like any other weapon. The freedom
>fighters in Burma who use PGP to communicate securely and to plan 
bombings
>against their oppressors...how can this be said to be "only 
defensive"?
>
>I've said this many times, so I won't spend more time here. All 
"defensive"
>weapons have "offensive" uses. Even shields, even armor, even 
crypto.
>
>To think otherwise is to show no awareness of history.
>
>
>--Tim May
>
>
>"The tree of liberty must be watered periodically with the blood of
>tyrants...."
>---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------
:----
>Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital 
money,
>ComSec 3DES:   408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital 
pseudonyms, zero
>W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information 
markets,
>Licensed Ontologist              | black markets, collapse of 
governments.
>
>
>
>

I suppose that you would consider a forearm raised against a baton to 
be offensive also!

Edwin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv

iQA/AwUBNU6HM0mNf6b56PAtEQIINQCg3y9wKdWphewWDNYcQuU6wsB6UpEAniKm
qlII24wLRe3GswRe1o3d27kL
=FK0r
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


When freedom is outlawed.......Only outlaws will be free!

If cryptography is outlawed, pomz pvumbxt xjmm ibwf dszquphsbqiz.

Fun! Fast! Revealing! Try "The World's Smallest Political Quiz" at:
   http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html

IS AIDS A GOVERNMENT/DRUG COMPANY HOAX?
   http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/index.htm