Re: Inman: Cognitive Dissonance?

[Stanton McCandlish <mech@eff.org>]

> This quote is a classic! The first bit about criminalizing crypto when it is
> used to cover up criminal activity is all right, I guess - sort of like 
> adding a charge of 'resisting arrest' to the list of charges filed against
> a criminal. 

It is NOT alright.  Such a "law" would be a blatant violation of the 5th
Amendment.  There is virtually no difference between criminalizing the use
of cryptography to "hide" criminal activity, and criminalizing the failure
of every criminal that every used a phone in the commission of crime to
send a recording of the conversation to the FBI, w/o even having to be
asked to do so, and before the cops even knew an alleged crime had or
would occur.


> However, Inman segues from that statement into the 'registry
> of institutions that can legally use cyphers'... hmmm.. as if the illegal
> uses of cryptography were so tempting that 'institutions' have to jump through
> hoops to demontrate their innocence [as opposed to the assumption that they
> will behave themselves of their own accord]. Then, the last sentence ices 
> the cake: "If you get somebody using one who isn't registered, then you go 
> after him." Warm up the tanks and load the tear gas, BATF! 'Presumption of
> innocence' be damned! Cryptography is a _munition_, right? Right? Hmm......

Just so.

> It never ceases to amaze me how Big Brother can leap from nice, harmless-
> sounding 'law and order' rhetoric to police-state strong-arm statements in
> the space of a single 'sound bite'.

I think the crypto-anarchists among us would say that's the nature of the
beast.  I honestly think most of the 'law and order' rhetoric is
heartfelt.  I'm pretty sure that most control-freaks really do believe
they are doing it 'for your own good', and see themselves as knights in
shining armor.  I guess I've just never had much faith in conspiracy
theories.  This is not to say such people are to be trusted, however.

Two old sayings come to mind here: never ascribe to malice what can be
adequately explained by stupidity or ignorance; and, if you ever meet
someone who says they want to 'protect' you or want to do something 'for
your own good', run away as fast as possible - this person is dangerous.

-- 
Stanton McCandlish * mech@eff.org * Electronic Frontier Found. OnlineActivist
F O R   M O R E   I N F O,    E - M A I L    T O:     I N F O @ E F F . O R G 
O  P  E  N    P  L  A  T  F  O  R  M     O  N  L  I  N  E    R  I  G  H  T  S
V  I   R   T   U   A   L   C  U   L   T   U   R   E      C  R   Y   P   T   O