Prof Shamir arrested

[jim bell]

At 04:28 PM 10/22/96 -0500, Douglas B. Renner wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Oct 1996, Bert-Jaap Koops wrote:
>> Excuse me if I don't react on this in detail. We have already 
>> explained it, and there it stands: fraud means playing a game without 
>> abiding by its rules. It's perfectly legitimate to establish a game 
>> and to introduse rules of the game with it. If you want to play the 
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>BIG Problem here.
>
>> game, play by its rules, otherwise don't play it. If you play it 
>> while cheating, though, you must bear the consequences ("go directly 
>> to jail" ;-).
>> Bert-Jaap

>I sincerely wish the world were THAT simple - there would be fewer problems.
[much good stuff deleted]
>In short, I disagree very strongly that it is as simple as playing by the 
>rules.  The first rule is that you cannot know all the rules.  Further, any 
>rule you _do_ know may be subject to change.  You have to become an 
>expert on what is likely to be static for your own purposes, and act 
>within the limits of your own knowledge.  Self-knowledge being perhaps our 
>greatest challenge, there are _bound_ to be problems on all sides.
>
>Perhaps the widespread dissemination of strong crypto will ultimately 
>have a scale-tilting effect on matters of taxation.
>-Doug

Thanks for helping to demolish Koops' argument, what little there is of it.  
It's particularly inappropriate that he would try to use a "game" analogy to 
defend his idea, because games are generally considered voluntary and it's 
obvious that his invention would not be used in a purely voluntary basis.  
Even if the only interference is the taxation of people who don't "play" and 
the subsidy of people who do, that can't be consider a voluntary arrangement.

I look at it this way:  Koops is building only one piece in a jigsaw puzzle 
of tyranny.  He doesn't want to talk about the complete picture, but it's 
there and it's not pretty.


Jim Bell
jimbell at pacifier.com