Re: Why am I wrong?

[lunaslide@loop.com]

>(Was referring to the govs ability to control communications *with them*)
>>Perhaps I do not understand your point.  They can perhaps
>>control the communication between them and me, but not between me and
>>everyone else.
>
>Ok please view my three points fromn the standpoint that so much of the
>total traffic would be affected by at least one, that "uncontrolled"
>communications would be minimal.

Do you mean readable by "controlled"?  I thought I knew what you meant by
that :-)  If you do mean readable, I don't see how that would make a
difference since so many people would still be encrypting their mail.  If
you mean controled as in being able to encrypt messages would be
controlled, that the govt. would have final say over whether one could
encrypt or not, then unless they pass legislation specifically outlawing
encryption, or encryption not readable by them, they could have no such
control.  Even if they did legislate, they could not enforce reliably
because to many would be breaking that law anyway.  Plus, the law would
(should, he says kneeling and praying) be struck down as unconstitutional
by the fourth.
>
>>>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.
>
>I think you had better review the concept of "property rights". Unless you
>have a contract that says you can, or can establish "expectation", the
>property owner who allows you to use their equipment may control how it is
>used.

Perhaps I had better.  I do know that if employers do have jurisdiction,
then my point about employers encouraging encryption should still hold
(barring legislative prohibition).  If it does not, then I conceed that you
are correct in saying that it would *affect* traffic, but it would not
totally control it.  As for universities, the traffic here would be
affected as well, as you say.  There would still have to be some
justification for imposing such a restriction and it would be demanded by
the students and the parents of the students, but it still could be
sucessful (how frightening this is!)

>>>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.
>
>That is fine but what if MasterCard refuses to accept this method ? (Not
>saying they will, just "what if" ? You are free to use digicash if you
>want but is not "legal tender for all debts public and private".

I think that the comming standards announced by credit companies will take
care of secure transactions, and I still don't see where the govt. would
have to do with controlling traffic here.  Just as we have many credit
cards, we will have many online accounts, each with their methods of
secure, verifiable trasactions.  Methods for payment and security will
become increasingly easy to use and software will be written to accomidate
these features.

>>Comments?  Bring 'em on! :-)
>
>I dood it.

The debates roll on...

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-----