Moral Crypto isn't wuss-ninnie.

[Aimee Farr]

"A potential balance between national security and science may lie in an
agreement to include in the peer review process (prior to the start of
research and prior to the publication) the question of potential harm to the
nation.... I believe it is necessary before significant harm does occur
which could well prompt the federal government to overreact." -- Inman, '82.

---
It is not wuss-ninnie to spark debate, or to examine characterizations and
motives. Many say, "technology is neutral." It's not. Technology is
CONTEXTUAL. Somebody is going to use it for something, and that's usually
somebody and something in particular.

Most of you would agree that surveillance researchers failed to consider and
address the moral and societal implications of surveillance technologies.
That, too many said, was somebody else's problem. Now, it's *our* problem.
Had they looked into motivations and societal factors, we would have had
more lead time to deal with improper surveillance and secondary use issues.
We are in this position today because they were "wuss-ninnies."

If the benefits outweigh the costs, then fine -- but show me that you
thought about it, and considered what other people might have to say, even
if you might not agree with them (or me). I'm glad you have political ideas
and theories of how it's going to all work out....but it often doesn't work
out the way you think, or want it to.

In my opinion, to characterize a technology as having aims detrimental to
national security interests is both irresponsible and foolish. Words and
events shape public policy -- why shape it against you?

I realize Tim's position, and I respect his right to express his political
opinions and ideas, even though I don't agree with them, and think he is a
self-identifying flamboyant jackass. I understand that many of you have the
same opinions, and likewise....


~Aimee