Cpunks Lauded

[Michael Motyka]

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.
>
>[chop]
>
>George
>
I think "might have been" and "might be" are close enough for government
work.

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?

Mike