John Young wrote:
The New York Times, October 4, 1996, p. A32. A Flawed Encryption Policy [Editorial]
[some text deleted]
However, the Administration downplays the fact that encryption is also a good way for honest citizens to prevent crime. At a time when banks and other private companies send vast amounts of confidential information over the electronic highway, it would seem sensible to make high-quality encryption widely available so that the private sector can protect itself from criminal or malicious eavesdropping. For that reason, the Government ought to promote wide-scale dissemination of encryption, both here and abroad.
Now, for those folks who oppose the personal ownership of firearms, or at least "really dangerous" firearms, I'd like to know exactly what's the difference (in principle) between the above "...high-quality encryption widely available so that the private sector can protect itself from criminal or...", and making firearms widely available? Surely the NYT is not going to join the NRA equivalent of pro-personal- crypto crackpots, anarchists, and all that?