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.
C'punks, On Fri, 29 Apr 1994, Bob Snyder wrote:
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.
(1) Tell that to the people who have had their assets seized and sold without any criminal charges ever being made. (2) "Proof" and "guilty" are legal words of art. Stop looking at them in some ultimate sense of right and wrong. Everyday, proof that isn't proof is used to find people guilty who are not guilty.
. . . I just think that people should work to change the current government policy through legal means before resorting to illegal measures.
No arguement there, *if* it works.
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.
There are 435(?) legislators.
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).
Press coverage is . . . "nice" but is it stopping the Clipper? Is it guaranteeing strong crypto? There are those among us who are taking actions that don't require winning the hearts and minds of politicians and entrenched bureaucrats. Would you rather wait until it is too late? S a n d y
participants (2)
-
Sandy Sandfort -
snyderra＠dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu