TruthMonger <tm@dev.null> wrote:

Joe Shea wrote:

...

On the other hand, if someone's going to blow up San Francisco this week, it sure would help to have a key to any encrypted communications he was generating.

Yeah, sure. I use an escrowed key to communicate about all of my criminal activities, and I send the FBI a cc: on all of them. It sure would help if LEA's all had access to the American Reporter's files so that they could censor any writing that might encite someone to blow up San Franciso. Why don't you send them all of your writing for approval, Joe? If all the people in favor of key escrow would allow the government total access to all of their communications, then the drop in crime would more than make up for that commited by those who use encryption.

If you can't afford to buy a clue, Joe, then try renting.

It seems that Mr. Shea is still a bit wet behind the ears when it comes to understanding how the world really works. Listen up, Joe. You might learn something here: As TruthMonger correctly points out, no terrorist is going to use an escrowed key to encrypt info about his activities. At least not as his only source of encryption. He may first encrypt the message with one or more non-GAK keys and then use the GAK key for the final layer, to make the message look legit (i.e., "government approved") to anyone who may be analyzing the contents of email traffic, looking for "unapproved crypto." Therefore, if someone is plotting to blow up San Francisco, GAK will be of no help in preventing it. Now the LEAs are not stupid. They realize this fact. Then why are they so adamant about implementing GAK when it will do absolutely nothing to prevent the very things (i.e., terrorism, child porn, [crime du jour]) it is supposedly meant to counter? Because terrorism, etc. are not the reasons they are pushing for GAK. The real reason is control: control over the citizenry. You see, Joe, the LEAs have seen the future, and it has scared them shitless. They see a world filled with ubiquitous privacy via strong encryption, privately-issued digital cash which transcends national borders and the taxman, and a digital world completely beyond their control. The powermonger's worst nightmare is to lose his power. He will do anything he can to maintain it. If GAK is slowly, but surely implemented over the next few years, maybe, just maybe, the powermongers will be able to maintain control. Or at least that's what they hope. If not, then the self-righteous moralist will lie awake at night in frustration knowing that somewhere in the world, someone is getting off to a .jpg image of child porn, even though that image was generated digitally without actually causing harm to any children. The DC politicos will be outraged that Americans are systematically moving their money offshore (via digital cash), out of the clutches of the IRS. The media thought police will not be able to control the flow of information around the world, thus exposing the lies that they attempt to propogate as "truth." Now, Joe, perhaps you are the kind of person that thinks dodging the taxman is wrong? Perhaps you think the government has the right to force its citizenry to pay for things like nuclear warheads, abortion clinics, or bribes to line the pockets of Third World banana republic dictators? I hope you are more intelligent than that, Joe. You see, it's all very simple, but we humans tend to complicate things needlessly. The fundamental question is whether or not we have the right to tell others what to do. If I was to stick my hand in your pocket, pull out your wallet, and give all your money to a beggar on the street, you'd probably have me arrested. And you would be completely right in doing so, because I unjustly took what didn't belong to me. But this is exactly what the government does to us every day. They force us ("voluntary compliance") to cough up a chunk of earnings to pay for their ridiculousness. If we don't pay, they levy our bank accounts or seize our assets, all under the guise of "law." The point is this: nobody has the right to tell me what to do. No single person, nor a group of politicians claiming to represent "my best interests" has the right to force me to do anything. I have the inherent (some call it God-given) right to live my life free from oppression. If you choose to submit yourself to the slavery of another man, that's your business. But you do not have the right to submit me to the same. Anyone who believes that government has certain "rights" that an individual does not have is severely flawed in their logic. In fact, that person is simply an oppressor at heart. If you think the government has the "right" to stick its hand in my pocket to fulfill what you perceive to be "good", then you knowingly support oppression. If you think government has the "right" to punish others who do not agree with your subjective moral code, then you are an oppressor. So what are you, Joe? Are you an oppressor or not? It's a yes or no answer. There is no middle ground. If you think there is middle ground, it only shows that you sympathize with the oppressors, and therefore are one of them deep down inside. Yours Truly, Freddy Bastiat