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" _____________________________________________