Re: Memme: Crypto=Bullet Proof Vests

[Ray Arachelian <sunder@brainlink.com>]

On Wed, 13 Aug 1997, Tim May wrote:

> 
> Careful with this argument!

Okay, so let's modify it to be domestic then and say "only cops can buy
body armor" etc... instead.
 
> Better be careful with this analogy. In fact, armor of various sorts is
> clearly a defense item, and is often on the list of restricted items. For
> example, Chobham and reactive tank armor was strictly controlled.

> Personally, I think Cypherpunks should concentrate on making crypto
> ubiquitous in the United States, and monkeywrench "by any means available"
> any plans to restrict in any way the use of strong crypto within the U.S.

Welp, using such arguements whenever possible, whenver the media and the
kongress will list will help monkeywrench domestic anti-crypto
legislation, or GAK only legislation.  This is still a valuable tool to
use in addition to making it ubuquitous. :)

Here's another project: if we can get enough $$$ to burn thousands of CD's
burned with Crypto on them and then get Software ETC and Egghead, and Rat
Shack and others to give them away as freebies the way that they give away
Netcomm and Prodigy and AOL CD's, we could reach quite a few folks.

I've done some of this a few years back at various PC and other Expos on
floppies, but getting Win95 and Mac versions of PGP wrappers and stuff to
fit on a floppy isn't feasable. :)

What would be cool is if we could ship an EudoraLite with a freeeware PGP
built (or some such), a crypto IRC client, an anonymous remailer client
(like the mixmaster java applet) and other such "internet access tools" on
this CD and tout it as Secure Internet access tools or some such. :) 

And if we can get a bunch of ISP's to allow us to use their client
software, say Netcom and such (not that I want to give them money) it
could be pretty useful for Joe Sixpack "I wanna get on the 'net thing" 

> By the way, there are already laws in place limiting "cop killer bullets,"
> and some restrictions are already in place for limiting body armor (the
> preferred name for "bullet proof vests").
> 
> "For law enforcement use only" is the label used.

> So I'd be careful with all of these munitions and armor analogies. The
> First Amendment arguments are much stronger and less ambiguous.

True, but when they scream "save the children" we can use the above and
show that our own government forbids us to "save the kids" from bullets by
making wearing of body armor forbidden.   We can then say crypto=body
armor and take it from there possibly getting both released.  (That and
three quarters will buy you a cup of coffe, but we have to try.)

The arguement can be raised, why can't normal citizen units purchase
bullet proof vests?  If this isn't a clear cut hint that we've been living
in a police state, what is?  Cops sodomizing black men on the street with
toilet plungers and beating the shit out of them?  Gun laws? :)

=====================================Kaos=Keraunos=Kybernetos==============
.+.^.+.|  Ray Arachelian    |Prying open my 3rd eye.  So good to see |./|\.
..\|/..|sunder@sundernet.com|you once again. I thought you were      |/\|/\
<--*-->| ------------------ |hiding, and you thought that I had run  |\/|\/
../|\..| "A toast to Odin,  |away chasing the tail of dogma. I opened|.\|/.
.+.v.+.|God of screwdrivers"|my eye and there we were....            |.....
======================= http://www.sundernet.com ==========================