At 02:46 PM 11/8/96 +0100, Matts Kallioniemi wrote:

At 17:12 1996-11-07 -0800, jim bell wrote:

...

Simple analogy: Suppose you put two people into a room with a deck of playing cards and a table, instructing "Person A" to build a house-of-cards, and telling "Person B" to stop him from achieving his goal. Who do you think will win? Obviously, the latter will win: It's vastly easier to knock such a structure down than to build it in the first place, and all "Person B" has to do is occasionally take a whack at the structure.

What if Person A is better armed? Could that change the outcome?

Well, okay, I sorta assumed a non-violent scenario. But adding that as a possibility actually strengthens the argument: Generally, it's easier to stop somebody doing something out in the open, than to do it. It's easier to knock down a house of cards than to build it up. But it's also easier to shoot the person doing the knocking down, etc. On the other hand, it's easier to DO something...if it can be done in secret. And it's harder to keep somebody from doing something, if that something can be kept secret. That's why it's so important that good cryptography remain legal. Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com