C'punks, On Thu, 28 Apr 1994, Bob Snyder wrote quoting me:
. . . Wrong on both counts. Getting it out legally would be nice--it's a great *fallback* position--but that's not the object of the game. . .
Maybe of your game. My game is to get cryptography available to all, without violating the law. . . .
By violating the law, you give them the chance to brand you "criminal," and ignore/encourage others to ignore what you have to say.
Do you think your fastidious compliance with the law will keep them from branding you a criminal, anyway? Wake up. 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.
The Constitution and other laws are not magic talismans. It is fantasy thinking that technical compliance with the government's laws renders them "completely powerless." A Smith & Wesson beats four-of-a-kind.
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. Them being the laws or the government?
The "them" was that of the original writer (you?), which I took to mean the government. In the context of my statement, either will serve. The "Smith & Wesson" statement was offered as a (humorous?) analogy. In poker four-of-a-kind is a good hand only as long as everyone plays by the rules. When force enters the picture, the rules--as the president's shills would say--"are no longer operative." The essence of government is guns, not laws. Get it? S a n d y