At 8:08 AM 4/28/94 -0700, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Do you think your fastidious compliance with the law will keep them from branding you a criminal, anyway? Wake up.
Errr, no, but they'd still need to prove it. Generally, it is easier to get a guilty verdict when you have committed a crime than when you have not.
The whole purpose of wide-spread availability and use of strong crypto is to what "others" say or think, irrelevant. Strong crypto means never having to say you're sorry.
I'm not arguing this point. I agree. I just think that people should work to change the current government policy through legal means before resorting to illegal measures. I think we are seeing some sucess in this area, with the hearings on Clipper and the push by at least one legislator to ease the cryptography export restrictions. We are getting reasonable press coverage, which is growing. Just like you only heard a bit about the Internet a few years ago, but now you can't pick up a newspaper or magazine without some mention of the Internet, you are starting to see articles about Cryptography (like the WSJ article, or NPR's piece). Bob -- Bob Snyder N2KGO MIME, RIPEM mail accepted snyderra@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu finger for RIPEM public key When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.