Interesting Question..

Here is an interesting question. The U.S government has classified encryption software as a munitions under the U.S ITAR regulations, which will limit the export of same. They rarely if ever approve an export unless they have thoroughly inspected it and have been given certain shall we say assurances. Next they develop a number of different chips that rely on a classified algorythm, which incidently they developed. They say that they want the entire population of the U.S to use these chips, going so far as to use their market power to put additional pressure on enterprises to manufacture and use these chips. Next the FBI howls thatt they need a law to ban domestic non-escrowed encryption. Then we have the Congress trying to pass stricter laws regarding encryption while screaming that they have to protect the children from all this nasty stuff on the web. This they scream even though they can't pass a balanced budget or manage to find enough money to educate those self same kids. Next we have us, the general public, who are worried that the government will abuse this proposed system. The government says they won't, which we are supposed to believe even though their track record shows that we can't trust them past the first money trough that comes their way. That leaves one final question. How long until they stop asking and pleading and start demanding we use this system of theirs. How long until we become criminals by enacting our right not to use it? Interesting, don't you think?

At 03:23 PM 7/21/97 -0400, you wrote:
Here is an interesting question. The U.S government has classified encryption software as a munitions under the U.S ITAR regulations, which
will limit the export of same. They rarely if ever approve an export unless they have thoroughly inspected it and have been given certain shall we say assurances. Next they develop a number of different chips that rely on a classified algorythm, which incidently they developed. They say that they want the entire population of the U.S to use these chips, going so far as to use their market power to put additional pressure on enterprises to manufacture and use these chips. Next the >FBI
The popualtion might, since too many people seem to think we are the government's workers, not vice-versa.
howls thatt they need a law to ban domestic non-escrowed encryption.
The FBI basically complains that the Constitution ties their hands to enforce draconian laws.
Then we have the Congress trying to pass stricter laws regarding encryption while screaming that they have to protect the children from all this nasty stuff on the web. This they scream even though they can't
14 year olds will look at hooters, given the chance [shock]
pass a balanced budget or manage to find enough money to educate those self same kids. Next we have us, the general public, who are worried that the government will abuse this proposed system. The government says they won't, which we are supposed to believe even though their track
[cough, bullshit, cough] I wouldn't trust the government with anything. Which suprises me that stupid parents leave their kids in buildings that are known targets of anti-government military groups. Oh well. Most americans probably don't know what Encryption is. Most americans think that because some half-assed monkey Senator says that some guy could use to send around kiddie-porn without the FBI catching him, they think that encryption is evil.
record shows that we can't trust them past the first money trough that comes their way. That leaves one final question. How long until they stop asking and pleading and start demanding we use this system of theirs. How long until we become criminals by enacting our right not to use it?
Reminds me of the gun laws.
Interesting, don't you think?
Interesting how many americans are getting screwed without ever knowing it. They sit on their asses, watching their stupid TV shows, believing the regurgitated shit the media tosses them when one man blows up a building. Sometimes I want to kick the whole goddamn country in the face.
participants (2)
-
bennett_t1ļ¼ popmail.firn.edu
-
David D.W. Downey