Re: A possible solution

[lcrocker@netcom.com (Lee Daniel Crocker)]

> > So why pick specifically on cryptography?  Why not increase penalties
> > for criminals who in their crimes are found to have used:
> > 
> > *	computers;
> > *	pagers;
> > *	cellular phones;
> > *	Casio watches with multiple alarms;
> > *	Cars with power windows;
> > *	Velcro-fastening tennis shoes;
> > *	Gore-Tex jackets;
> > *	Ibuprofen pain relievers;
> > *	Fat-free ice cream;
> 
> Why don't we stick to the topic? Do you have an intelligent reply or are 
> you going to shoot your mouth off? Or Maybe you can share something 
> better with us, all knowing and wise one.
> 
> Aaron

His was the most intelligent reply I've seen.  Why don't you answer
the question instead of evading it?  What is special about cryptography
that makes its use in a crime a Bad Thing, whereas the use of, say, a
toaster, is not?  Attempts to punish the tools instead of the crime
make as much sense and are as unsuccessful as treating an infection-caused
fever with aspirin instead of treating the infection itself.

-- 
Lee Daniel Crocker  /o)\ "Vast amounts of unused information ultimately
lcrocker@netcom.com \(o/  become a kind of pollution."
Magic Edge: CROCK        --Al Gore