Re: Why am I wrong?

[lunaslide@loop.com]

>>I don't think that I am stating a position of cypher-anarchy, but
>>advocating a position of personal privacy guaranteed by the Fourth
>>Amendment.
>
>Don't forget the other side of the conversation. While the government
>cannot (notice I did not say they might not try) effectively control
>communication, there are other points at which control may be exerted:

These exceptions are noted.
>
>1) communications *with* the government (IRS, Social Security, etc).

I would want the govt. to understand what I am sending them and I would
want to understand what they are sending me.  Hell, they can have my public
key too ;-)  But I don't see how they could exercise control simply because
I am communicating with them.  They cannot come blow my door down or even
slap my hand if they know I use encryption in all of my other
transmissions.  Perhaps I do not understand your point.  They can perhaps
control the communication between them and me, but not between me and
everyone else.

>2) communications using someone else's equipment/network (university,
>   employer, etc)

Employers nor universities have any jurisdiction over whether you use
encryption in your transmissions while using their networks unless it
specifically does not allow it when you first agree to have an account with
them.  Even in that case, they would be hard pressed to enforce it on a
university wide basis.  I would hope that employers would be smart enough
to encourage the use of encryption for their employees, even if they are
personal messages.  It would decrease their competitions chances to
intercept and decode the important, sensitive info because it would be
immersed in even more, unimportant info that is encrypted as well.

The govt. has control over the universities in that they are the ones who
fund them.  If the govt. denied funds to a given college because they did
not regulate the type of encryption, or alieviate the encryption use
entirely, what reasoning would they give to the schools board and the
public for restricting something that is not against the law and is, in
fact, protected by a constituional amendment.  It would not fly with the
voters.

>3) communications with anyone (Internet merchant, etc) who says "this
>   is not what <MasterCard|Visa|AmEx> approves..."

I don't quite understand your meaning.  I am a merchant and I encourage my
customers to use PGP when they send information over the internet, whether
to me or to anyone else.  I explain to them the reasons for this, assisted
by Mr. Zimmermann's excellent analogy of the postcard/envelope difference.
Most are business people and readily accept the reasoning and are willing
to incorperate it into their dealings.  To respond to this point, I would
need to understand it better.  What is not what Mastercard, et al approves?
The encryption?

>Each of these may have compelling reasons for complying with what the
>government wants even if it is not law. IMNSHO "law" is just a means
>for exacting retribution/revenge - if you have to resort to it, you
>have already lost.
>
Indeed, there would be some impact from what point out, however, it would
not be enough pressure to suppress the encryption movement unless it became
painfully, and obviously, unconstitutional.  Law is optimally there for us
to redress grievences.  There will be skirmishes on the legal front for the
next 5 or 6 years, as far as I can see, but eventually the Surpreme Court
will set enough precidents that procecutors will be left with little power.
I don't think this is an optomistic view, but a realistic one based on the
current events and on decisions in related matters by the court in the
past.

Comments?  Bring 'em on! :-)

Respectfully,
Jeff Conn

PS  Yeah for Zimmermann and crew!

lunaslide

On the meridian of time there is no injustice, only the poetry of motion
creating the illusion of truth and drama.
                                                Henry Miller

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6.2

mQBvAzD3EHEAAAEDAMVwZzXozPjX18mCenA5fJsdWZXcrhJCxPR+SoVCmR7d4ZVU
mwITzPTHo/GyLvJrWyk5YdhheczyY2VSawaMrCN/nWA7K9lwAylbKyPxqBhRYJ3C
2wi2uD5LY2wypNOQyQARAQABtB5KZWZmIENvbm4gPGx1bmFzbGlkZUBsb29wLmNv
bT6JAHUDBRAw+1bqS2NsMqTTkMkBAQkTAwCersFbCyk8O0MbGlNcZDAe24CLEWQ0
0C5EHni33W76UsG1bybcLsuMH6HVwLF7IqZivnzc7wkujYPQvCqn8HEYYTld8V9V
Cou4dOvA8kV7rHvAn/LuLx7DRruLFrRoPSk=
=OIT9
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----