Re: Gee...

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

> 
> From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com>
> 
> > On Wed, 27 Apr 1994, David Mandl wrote:
> > 
> > > 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.
> 
> First of all, the above was not my position (though I have no big problem
> with it).  I was just explaining the point of this thread, which the
> previous poster seemed to be unaware of.  Now, are you saying I'm wrong
> about it being easy to get crypto software out of the country
> illegally?  If so, you've got to be kidding.  This stuff has probably
> crossed the border fifty times TODAY.

Yes, perhaps.

> Everyone on this list knows that.
> If simply getting crypto code out of the country By Any Means Necessary
> was the goal, this thread would never have been started, Perry would
> never have considering publishing code in machine-readable form, and
> no one would have done the little test with Schneier's book (Hal?...I
> forget who it was).

By any means necessary includes by means legally suspect, but not
explicitly forbidden.

> The point was to get it out in such a way that
> no one had to hide from the lawman or pretend the code was written
> overseas, and we could all walk in the sun.  Me, I have no problem
> with people exporting it illegally to their heart's content.

In a public forum, this was probably the goal.  In general it is not.
Perry, I suspect, has too much to lose to be caught exporting.
To suggest that the point was to find a legal solution is to dodge the
basic question.  The point is to get the stuff out.  Finding a legal
solution is one method.  Don't lose sight of the end.  The end is still
in many ways, revolutionary.  Cypherpunks, from all I can tell, is partly
the political movement to empower the individual at the expense of the
state.  The fact that the state has the upper hand for the moment only
varies method, not intent.


> > 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.
> 
> Your point?  Sure, the government can do whatever they want.  So?

So even the exportation of crypto "technically" compliant is dangerous.
It could merely trigger more drastic measures.  Instead, the focus
is or should be on getting the genie out of the bottle for good, so that
even extreme measures yield nothing.


> I have no interest in the Constitution and the "Law" (though I obey
> the latter because I'm not keen to spend the rest of my life in jail).
> I just don't care.  All I was doing above was explaining this thread
> to someone who seemed to miss the whole point.

In so far as the law is a matter of perspective, I think everyone should
try to embrace the concepts of the law, and in particular, the constitution.

Just because our contemporaries have lost sight, or made (drastic) 
departures, doesn't mean the document, or the doctrine, is useless.


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

-uni- (Dark)