A FBI document reads: # To ensure that this occurs, legislation mandating the # use of Government-approved encryption products or # adherence to Government encryption criteria is required. Ex-AAG Jo Ann Harris told a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee in 1994: $ we have absolutely no intention of mandating private use of a particular $ kind of cryptography, I ranted: % Just what real legal recourse do we have against lying scum in the % bureaucracy ? Brian Davis writes:
You sure are anxious to prosecute government officials.
You're damn right I'm anxious to prosecute government officials who appear to have willfully lied about public policy in testimony before Congress ! Look, plenty of people here are honest-to-[insert your higher power of choice here] anarchists. I happen to be at most an anarchogroupie ;) and I'm reasonably comfortable with the U.S. version of representative democracy. [Note to the list: I'm not looking to spark any sort of debate about political philosophy, on or off the list. I'm not interested in arguing semantics, so don't bother trying.] For representative democracy to be even vaguely democratic at all, the representatives need to level with their constituents as much as possible. I certainly intend to hold public officials speaking in an official capacity about official business to a high standard of conduct.
What is untrue about her statement. Maybe she meant it's OK to use ROT-13 but nothing else ...
How could that be compatible with "no intention of mandating...a particular kind of cryptography" ?
And you guys complained about the Jake Baker prosecution!
Non-sequitur. How is the Baker case relevant to this ? -Futplex <futplex@pseudonym.com> "Say goodbye to the clowns in Congress" -Elton John/Bernie Taupin