Re: Gee...

[Black Unicorn <unicorn@access.digex.net>]

> 
> C'punks,
> 
> On Wed, 27 Apr 1994, David Mandl wrote:
> 
> > > From: "Phil G. Fraering" <pgf@srl01.cacs.usl.edu>
> > > . . .
> > > How about tarring the code together, encrypting it, and e-mailing the
> > > message out?
> > 
> > See you in jail.
> > 
> > Anyone can get this stuff out of the country surreptitiously.
> > I think the point was to get it out _legally_, through the law's
> > _own_ loopholes.  Then they're completely powerless to stop it
> > or persecute the responsible parties in any way. . . .
> 
> Wrong on both counts.  Getting it out legally would be nice--it's a great
> *fallback* position--but that's not the object of the game.  The idea is
> to get it out and make it widely available.  Period. 


Concur.


> 
> The Constitution and other laws are not magic talismans.  It is fantasy 
> thinking that technical compliance with the government's laws renders 
> them "completely powerless."  A Smith & Wesson beats four-of-a-kind.

If you're looking for the moral high ground, then you need to respect
the "spirit" of the regulation.  Only in the case that you really make
a good faith effort to comply with the regulation, can you hold yourself
out as morally pure with regards to United States export regulations.

Since the spirit of this regulation is:

1>  Keep high technology and strong crypto in the United States and
	OUT of foreign hands.

2>  Empower the Federal Government by limiting the economic marketability
	of strong crypto through strict market regulation outside the U.S.

3>  Keep the private sector out of the Strong Crypto Business.

Getting the code, concepts, media, academic materials, or anything that
might by furthest stretch of the imagination allow a foreigner to re-
produce strong crypto is out of the question.

You can't have it both ways.

I want to comply.
I want to export.

Instead it must be realized that the real question is HOW to get it out
in a way that has not been thought of, or will not be checked, or
is not yet regulated.  (Read, Don't Get Caught.)

I think Mr. Sandfort has the right idea here by noting the importance
of not only release, but wide distribution.  Only then do the laws become
"powerless."  In any event, there is still the risk that extreme measures
might be taken to hold on to centralist powers.  (Total ban on crypto,
born classified notion, see Innman or the current position on export,
that posting to the internet is per se the constructive equiv. of export).

I must add that I don't support the violation of export regulation,
particularly in public or semi-public forums.  I only note that the
belief that both the letter and spirit of law (which is in this day and 
age very centralist) and the cypherpunk goals can co-exist is 
intellectually inconsistent in many instances.

One cannot serve cypherpunks and centralism both.

The real goal is to serve cypherpunks and stay free of criminal/civil 
action.

> 
>  S a n d y,  (Attorney-out-law)
> 

-uni- (Dark)