Gee...

[Sandy Sandfort]

C'punks,

On Thu, 28 Apr 1994, Bob Snyder wrote quoting me:

> >. . . Wrong on both counts.  Getting it out legally would be nice--it's
> >a great *fallback* position--but that's not the object of the game. . .

> Maybe of your game.  My game is to get cryptography available to all,
> without violating the law. . . .
> 
> By violating the law, you give them the chance to brand you "criminal," and
> ignore/encourage others to ignore what you have to say.

Do you think your fastidious compliance with the law will keep them from 
branding you a criminal, anyway?  Wake up.

The whole purpose of wide-spread availability and use of strong crypto is 
to what "others" say or think, irrelevant.  Strong crypto means never 
having to say you're sorry.
 
> >The Constitution and other laws are not magic talismans.  It is fantasy
> >thinking that technical compliance with the government's laws renders
> >them "completely powerless."  A Smith & Wesson beats four-of-a-kind.
> 
> I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here.  Them being the laws or
> the government?

The "them" was that of the original writer (you?), which I took to mean 
the government.  In the context of my statement, either will serve.  The 
"Smith & Wesson" statement was offered as a (humorous?) analogy.  In 
poker four-of-a-kind is a good hand only as long as everyone plays by the 
rules.  When force enters the picture, the rules--as the president's 
shills would say--"are no longer operative."

The essence of government is guns, not laws.  Get it?


 S a n d y