Re: Morality masks technical ignorance
blancw@pylon.com:
Responding to msg by rishab: I always thought the emphasis on this list was on _technological_ rather than _political_ or _legal_ or _moral_ means to protect privacy and free expression - including the current limitations. ....................................................... So Rishab - do you think there's any good reason why governments shouldn't require the implementation of key escrow [...] The key words in my inquiry are *reason why*.
And the key word in _my_ post was _means_, not _reason why_. I.e. that (in my view of the Cpunk position) one can protect privacy not through morals, policies or law, but through technology. There may be very good reasons why governments should not require the implementation of key escrow, or why people shouldn't pry into their girlfriends' secrets (which if you really want to know I find reprehensible). Unfortunately those reasons of morality need not prevent the actions. Which is why Cypherpunks discuss untraceable anonymous remailers despite occasionally (aka Detweiler, for instance) decrying their (immoral) misuse, and why they should discuss breaking Norton Encrypt (or DES, or Skipjack, or 16384-bit RSA keys), while giving sermons about immoral boyfriends. Nobody (the Single-Horned One included) thinks reading other peoples' mail is moral, but that should not preclude a legitimate discussion of crypto technology. As it so happens, hardly anyone here knew about Norton Encrypt so we got embroiled in this argument. If we were to adopt a consistently (and solely) moral stance, we would accept Detweiler's position that remailers are bad and should be banned because they can be easily misused. Well, I guess these are the glitches in discourse we have to face on a list that's for both technology and policy. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rishab Aiyer Ghosh "In between the breaths is rishab@dxm.ernet.in the space where we live" rishab@arbornet.org - Lawrence Durrell Voice/Fax/Data +91 11 6853410 Voicemail +91 11 3760335 H 34C Saket, New Delhi 110017, INDIA
Rishab Aiyer Ghosh: As it so happens, hardly anyone here knew about Norton Encrypt so we got embroiled in this argument. If we were to adopt a consistently (and solely) moral stance, we would accept Detweiler's position that remailers are bad and should be banned because they can be easily misused.
There is a difference between believing that something is wrong (a moral stance), and believing that force should be used to stop it (a ban). A consistent position, for someone believing remailers are bad, would be that they personally wouldn't run a remailer or tell other people how to do so. It would not require advocating bans on remailers. And trying to _convince_ other people not to do something, without the threat of force, is not _banning_. -- Ken Arromdee (email: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu) "No boom today. Boom tomorrow, there's always a boom tomorrow." --Ivanova
participants (2)
-
arromdee@blaze.cs.jhu.edu -
rishab@dxm.ernet.in