there is no middle ground (Re: The Grand Compromise is Coming)

[Adam Back]

Tim May <tcmay at got.net> writes:
> But I don't get the point of what would be gained by my testimony. It
> wouldn't  help the Cause.

Reasoning was following on from Eric Murrays:

: how much further than completely free crypto can you go?

Most of the lobbyists as far as I can make out are talking in terms of
privacy from government, right to free speech.

Not in terms of eroding government power, avoiding taxes, making 
governments obsolete, nor in terms of hostility towards the legitimacy 
of government, it's methods etc.

So you might argue that this would make the privacy lobyists seem more
middle of the road.  However crypto is binary, either it's free, or
it's GAKked, so they (the privacy lobbyists) can't disavow crypto
anarchy, because it's a consequence of the technology and legal frame
work they want for privacy.  There's nothing in between.

My conclusion was that the crypto anarchy conclusions are pretty much 
in line with some of the NSAs scare stories and their spin is being 
used as an argument for GAK.

Adam
-- 
Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/

print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>
)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`