mmotyka at lsil.com
Mon Jan 7 11:42:54 PST 2002
georgemw at speakeasy.net wrote :
>On 5 Jan 2002, at 7:58, John Young wrote:
>> This crypto demonization may well intensify as investigations
>> proceed into the government, military and intelligence failure to
>> prevent 911. Whether crypto actually played any role in the
>> attack may be seen as unimportant so long as a convincing
>> story can be promoted that it must have been.
>I don't think anyone claims that it "must have been". Rather,
>the idea that it might have been, or might be useful for future
>terrorists, is sufficient to demonize it. Similarly, the 9/11
>terrorists didn't use guns, but everyone knows terrorists use guns,
>The idea of cryptography as munitions isn't just metaphor or,
>if it is, it's a really really good metaphor.
I think "might have been" and "might be" are close enough for government
Have we reached the point where a local fibbie can state "uses
encryption" as probable cause or whatever deficient standard they use
these days before inserting a tap?
More information about the cypherpunks-legacy