Choices

["A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security" <PADGETT@hobbes.orl.mmc.com>]

>Well there you have it. Many of the poor clearly are not buying new sets
>that have closed-captioning. Meanwhile, we all pay for it when we buy new
>sets and VCRs. 

High added cost does not follow. We (actually my wife as a Christmas present)
bought the cc box because none of our sets were new enough. I suspect that
the cc decode capability could be integrated into the existing video 
decoder chips at no additional cost (other than what is needed to turn
it on and off & that is done electronically) - suspect that if you look
at trade (e.g. hotel/motel) set prices before cc was added and after that 
you will will see little difference (any body here know ? I have not followed
this.

V-chip could be similarly integrated just by having the signal cause the 
video to lose sync. 

>A hidden tax, that does not benefit those in need. 

Depends on the quanta. I suspect that like cc, in the long run it will have
little or no effect on set prices. BTW, anyone know under what juristiction
the regulation requiring cc devices was issued ? ADA ? - if so would not
work for V-chip.

>ObCypherpunks: A truly surprising number of people on this list are on the
>one hand lambasting the government for thievery, incompetence, corruption,
>and violation of their rights, while on the other hand explaining why they
>think some particular intrusion is justified. 

Think I have been consistant - am FOR things which add to my choices and
AGAINST those which reduce the choices available. In general I do not
mind paying a delta for increased choice so long as it is small

>People need to think about the powerful implications of strong crypto, and
>decide if they are _for_ access to strong crypto by citizens, or _against_
>it. All things follow from this decision.

Am FOR choices. Citizens *have* access to strong crypto. Do not believe
use of crypto in this country can be regulated between two citizens or on
public networks. (Note, I say *public*. On *private* networks, the owner
can enforce any rules he/she/it/other likes.) Gov has right to define
communications with and between itself.

Gov does have the right (in fact the duty) to regulate communications 
between citizens and non-citizens/sites in other lands (and if you do not 
think communications with sites such as anon.penet.fi are inside the charter 
of the NSA, I have this prime Florida land - we're in the dry season now 8*).

					Warmly,
						Padgett