From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com>
On Wed, 27 Apr 1994, David Mandl wrote:
Anyone can get this stuff out of the country surreptitiously. I think the point was to get it out _legally_, through the law's _own_ loopholes. Then they're completely powerless to stop it or persecute the responsible parties in any way. . . .
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. The idea is to get it out and make it widely available. Period.
First of all, the above was not my position (though I have no big problem with it). I was just explaining the point of this thread, which the previous poster seemed to be unaware of. Now, are you saying I'm wrong about it being easy to get crypto software out of the country illegally? If so, you've got to be kidding. This stuff has probably crossed the border fifty times TODAY. Everyone on this list knows that. If simply getting crypto code out of the country By Any Means Necessary was the goal, this thread would never have been started, Perry would never have considering publishing code in machine-readable form, and no one would have done the little test with Schneier's book (Hal?...I forget who it was). The point was to get it out in such a way that no one had to hide from the lawman or pretend the code was written overseas, and we could all walk in the sun. Me, I have no problem with people exporting it illegally to their heart's content.
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.
Your point? Sure, the government can do whatever they want. So? I have no interest in the Constitution and the "Law" (though I obey the latter because I'm not keen to spend the rest of my life in jail). I just don't care. All I was doing above was explaining this thread to someone who seemed to miss the whole point.
S a n d y, (Attorney-out-law)