-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In the 21-Mar-94 issue of Computerworld p.4 the following statment is attributed to Donn Parker of SRI, "We have to make strong, nonescrow encryption a crime". I do not remember Parker making a statement like this previously, is this a new position for Parker or is my memory going bad?
He is quoted in the March issue of Scientific American as saying ``You can't have absolute privacy. A democracy just can't operate that way.'' (page 101) The article goes on to say The question is not whether cyberspace will be subjected to legislation but rather ``how and when law and order will be imposed,'' Parker says. He predicts that the current state of affairs will get much worse before the government steps in ``to assure privacy and to protect the rights people do have.'' I was so incensed that I began writing him a letter questioning this. I might have carried through, but I couldn't find an email address for him right away. (Anyone have it handy?) His attitude reminds me of claims by DERD & Co. (love that new designator! what does the R stand for?) that ``if you knew what I know, you too would favor government surveillance''. You write almost as if you are surprised that he in particular would express these positions. I was unaware of his existence before reading this Scientific American piece, so I had no preconceived notions. Why were you surprised? John E. Kreznar | Relations among people to be by jkreznar@ininx.com | mutual consent, or not at all. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLY+VbMDhz44ugybJAQHXXgP8CtmWmGKRtkH0NQP82BvEn2HKA4yETXGw /1ztpQncJ/joInhIacuuGYLuPqf3q4ahBRWBa4l2+KHvn2f5Epsb71i2DUsTt/DT QQdxsUEX5DfeX4JFd0yVceYCkeC0Pd4yCXYlFy6xwl/HYgyQjtnx7F+97+XiWjNi VHvXjZo26n8= =ilkn -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----