[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Clipper Death Threat

To: "LYLE, DAVID R." <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Clipper Death Threat
From: [email protected] (Mike McNally)
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 94 07:37:42 CST
Cc: Sandy Sandfort <[email protected]>, cypherpunks <[email protected]>
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
Sender: [email protected]

"LYLE, DAVID R." writes:
 > Don't get me wrong.  I am all for private communications.  I'm very
 > much against restricting the public's access to encryption
 > technology. What gets me is when everyone runs around saying "this
 > is a right". 

Well, I'd say that the right to use whatever means available to shield
communication from eavedropping is as natural as any other.  It's not
a "right" to be free from attempts to eavesdrop, however.

If the FBI tries to tap my phone, then laws may (or may not) be
violated but no natural rights have.  If, however, I am prosecuted for
attempting to encase my information in a cryptographic strongbox
without providing the FBI the key, then I indeed see that as a
transgression against my natural rights as a person.

--
| GOOD TIME FOR MOVIE - GOING ||| Mike McNally <[email protected]>       |
| TAKE TWA TO CAIRO.          ||| Tivoli Systems, Austin, TX:        |
|     (actual fortune cookie) ||| "Like A Little Bit of Semi-Heaven" |

Follow-Ups:
- "Natural Rights" and the Surveillance State
  - From: [email protected] (Timothy C. May)
- "Natural Rights" and the Surveillance State
  - From: [email protected] (Mike McNally)

References:
- RE: Clipper Death Threat
  - From: "LYLE, DAVID R." <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Re: standard for stegonography?
Next by Date: Swiss Banks
Prev by thread: Re: Clipper Death Threat
Next by thread: "Natural Rights" and the Surveillance State
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread