Jim Gillogly <jim@rand.org> writes:

...

tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May) writes: I believe the focus on Clipper/Skipjack details and technical issues plays into the hands of those who want to deploy these systems.

I agree that focussing on the technical side is a diversion, and I have been a major offender here lately. But I also think it's important that we understand what it is we're opposed to. [....] Understanding precisely how the government claims they're protecting my rights is important to me, so that I can tell them and anybody else willing to listen how they're not.

Technical discussion (aside from being fun :-) is useful in understanding *what* the government is really up to, how much privacy/freedom is being stolen, what things they're telling the truth or lying about, and how much work it takes to break the systems they're proposing to implement or ban. It's also useful for understanding how to build systems that *do* protect privacy, and for showing how those systems are generally better technically than the privacy-stealing systems the government wants us to use. But as Jim pointed out, getting the details wrong can lose us a lot of credibility. Bill