Does anyone know if the government has released any firm figures on the number of lives that would be saved from terrorist activities with the outlawing of strong encryption and mandatory key escrow? If we had the proper figures to work with then we could make a valid judgment as to how many lives anti-GAK supporters would have to put in danger in order to tip the balance so that it would be in the best interests of the citizens to allow strong non-GAK'ed crypto. I, for one, would hate to see lives lost needlessly merely because those opposing GAK did not have the proper figures to work with. I think that in the interests of the greatest number of citizens, the government should supply solid figures as to the body count that would be required to negate the need for laws against strong encryption. Also, the government should provide a separate figure for how many lives of legislators would need to be lost in order to balance the threat of strong encryption. I imagine that it would take far fewer Congressman's lives to balance it out than it would average citizen's lives. Call your Congressman and ask if these figures are available. In order to get the most help possible, begin the conversation by asking the Congressman if he is in favor of saving lives. BeanCounter
bureau42 Anonymous Remailer <remailer@bureau42.ml.org> wrote:
Does anyone know if the government has released any firm figures on the number of lives that would be saved from terrorist activities with the outlawing of strong encryption and mandatory key escrow?
If we had the proper figures to work with then we could make a valid judgment as to how many lives anti-GAK supporters would have to put in danger in order to tip the balance so that it would be in the best interests of the citizens to allow strong non-GAK'ed crypto. I, for one, would hate to see lives lost needlessly merely because those opposing GAK did not have the proper figures to work with.
That's like asking, "If the feds get what they want, how many more churches will they burn, and how many more families will they shoot in the woods?" The answer is nobody knows. But judging from from history it seems that when they feds are allowed to do whatever they want, innocent people often get killed. A better question to ask is how many more people will die before we do something about the corrupt federal agents.
At 9:26 PM -0700 9/11/97, bureau42 Anonymous Remailer wrote:
Does anyone know if the government has released any firm figures on the number of lives that would be saved from terrorist activities with the outlawing of strong encryption and mandatory key escrow?
If we had the proper figures to work with then we could make a valid judgment as to how many lives anti-GAK supporters would have to put in danger in order to tip the balance so that it would be in the best interests of the citizens to allow strong non-GAK'ed crypto. I, for one, would hate to see lives lost needlessly merely because those opposing GAK did not have the proper figures to work with.
This is a worthless and dangerous argument to make. If you can't see why, you have no business writing articles on this list. Hint: "The greatest good for the greatest number" is passe. --Tim May
I think that in the interests of the greatest number of citizens, the government should supply solid figures as to the body count that would be required to negate the need for laws against strong encryption. Also, the government should provide a separate figure for how many lives of legislators would need to be lost in order to balance the threat of strong encryption. I imagine that it would take far fewer Congressman's lives to balance it out than it would average citizen's lives.
Call your Congressman and ask if these figures are available. In order to get the most help possible, begin the conversation by asking the Congressman if he is in favor of saving lives.
BeanCounter
There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!" ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
If we had the proper figures to work with then we could make a valid judgment as to how many lives anti-GAK supporters would have to put in danger in order to tip the balance so that it would be in the best interests of the citizens to allow strong non-GAK'ed crypto. I, for one, would hate to see lives lost needlessly merely because those opposing GAK did not have the proper figures to work with. This is a worthless and dangerous argument to make. If you can't see why, you have no business writing articles on this list. Hint: "The greatest good for the greatest number" is passe.
I took the original writers point to be that maybe, just maybe the reason they aren't giving us any numbers is because there AREN'T any numbers. That the chances are strong crypto _won't_ cause any deaths. Won't cost any lives. They know that.
At 6:28 PM -0700 9/14/97, snow wrote:
If we had the proper figures to work with then we could make a valid judgment as to how many lives anti-GAK supporters would have to put in danger in order to tip the balance so that it would be in the best interests of the citizens to allow strong non-GAK'ed crypto. I, for one, would hate to see lives lost needlessly merely because those opposing GAK did not have the proper figures to work with. This is a worthless and dangerous argument to make. If you can't see why, you have no business writing articles on this list. Hint: "The greatest good for the greatest number" is passe.
I took the original writers point to be that maybe, just maybe the reason they aren't giving us any numbers is because there AREN'T any numbers. That the chances are strong crypto _won't_ cause any deaths. Won't cost any lives. They know that.
And that's nonsense. The widespread deployment of strong crypto will in various ways "cause" various deaths, in ways we've discussed many times over the years. So? Some of them will have deserved death, some will have gotten caught in situations they didn't deserve, and so on. Any new technology or communications medium produces deaths. Freedom of speech inevitably triggers some historical developments which cause deaths. So? It is fatuous nonsense to suggest "That the chances are strong crypto _won't_ cause any deaths." Not that "body counts" are a basis for deciding on basic freedoms. Which was my point. --Tim There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!" ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
participants (4)
-
bureau42 Anonymous Remailer -
nobody＠REPLAY.COM -
snow -
Tim May