Hi all, Forwarded message:
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 15:57:28 -0800 From: Mark Johnson <mark@hercules.reno.nv.us>
To hell with it, lets just send it over a modem and claim its Analog not electronic transfer. If MA-Bell (or sibling) wants to change it from Analog to Digital for overseas transfer then THEY can go after MA-Bell. Then if we can't do that then we would not even be allowed to discuss cryptography (code) verbally as it all gets transformed to electrons now anyway.
The distinction between analog and digital is a technicality and not a distinction I want my civil liberties hanging from. An analog signal is just a digital signal with a word length greater than the resolution of the machine. Also one can claim that because electricity is carried by distinct charges it is digital. Counter this is that the charges themselves can take on multiplicity of ranges. A digital signal is just a analog signal of on and off, direct current one might say that is simply turned on and off. Ad nausium...
What is the difference between me reading(using sound waves) code line by line to John Doe versus having my computer(using sound waves) communicating to John Does's computer,Tape Recorder(high quality), or his well atuned ear which understands MODEMese (or was that MODEMonics)?
Realisticaly nothing. The real discussion going on here, broken into a multiplicity of special interests pov's, is whether we as individuals have a right to communicate to each other and exactly under what conditions that communication can be monitored, manipulated, prohibited, etc. Balancing the theory behind democracy and multiplicity of views versus the prohibition of various types of acts, distinct and class(ical), which pose threats to individuals, groups, and potentialy national interests is the point... If looked at rationaly, saying I can tell you something if written in a particular code, alphabetic and artistic issues at point, on a certain type of material is ok while if I transfer the identical information using some other code and media it is not is looney tunes. The 'control' types would like us to believe that media is the real issue here, not what is actualy being said. A point easily confused by somebody who doesn't know what the word(s) mean. A very popular view, and not one I consider 'bad', is that we should err on the side of safety. This means that we don't change the status quo too fast. Not necessarily because we like the results being measured in human misery but because while we might relieve their misery in the short term we might 'unbalance' the political situation. History is rife with the results of such periods. However, I balance this with the realisation that once it is clear something needs to be done it is better to go ahead and commit to the results even though we recognise a priori that some results may not necessarily be to our liking. We just have to deal with them when we figure out which ones they are. The trick between these two is to find a 'litmus test' which will provide an observer some sort of measure of their position between the two (or more) positions. Jim Choate ravage@ssz.com