Re: <none provided>

[bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells)]

There's nothing technical here; it's a political rant, though
more or less related to the list topic.

In article <9308210357.AA19222@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>,
Anonymous <nowhere@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> wrote:
: Posted by a misguided, hysterical, raster-burned ranter:
:
: What happens when one of these HR4079, Digital
: Telephony, Clipper/Capstone/Skipjack proposals passes,
: and Cyphernacht takes place? Storm troopers will throw
: your nice little PC's on the ground to ruin the hard
: drives, and only the new, improved hard drives, with
: access for legitimate law enforcement needs will be sold.
:
:
: Storm troopers?  You take this all a little too seriously.
: What makes you think that you and your nasty little private
: secrets warrent the time, money and effort of non-existant
: storm-troopers?

Well, in the finest of Usenet tradition :-), let me ask: What
would have made a Jew think that innocent, innocuous little him
would warrant the time, money and effort of non-existant storm-
troopers? Other than, that is, that the storm-troopers were real
and they had already gone after lots of people just like him....

To answer the question, though: once the law enforcement folks
decide to make unapproved cryptography illegal, they *will* use
it, not only for the purpose it's intended, as bad as that is
(and, remember: *anyone* no matter how small, can serve as an
example to deter others), but as an excuse for various and sundry
invasions and seizures. I draw your attention to RICO, forfeiture
laws, the use of traffic tickets for police funding, Steve
Jackson Games, not to mention the rather dramatic destruction of
our civil liberties attendant (not at all coincidentally) on the
so-called Drug War.

One lesson of history is quite clear: governments have an
absolute tendency to misuse their power. Furthermore, the further
the misuse has progressed and been accepted as "normal", the
harder it is to stop, or reverse.

I could go on and on but the bottom line is that any attempt by
the government to exercise prior constraint on either the content
*or* methods of communication, as the latter entails the former,
must be absolutely rejected and without consideration for
utilitarian or other similar arguments. Ultimately, the free
flow of information is the only constraint on government.