Ephemeral, was RE: Junger et al.

[Ed Gerck <egerck@laser.cps.softex.br>]

Regarding my comment below:

>Ed Gerck writes:
>[...]
> > BTW, I think that Gwin was struggling to express the notion that
> > source code (syntax) is a device whenever there is a clear binding
> > between that source code and known semantics, together with proper
> > pragmatics (the enviroment, as defined in semiotics), in order to
> > perform the desired function. 
>

I received some private postings which questioned it by questioning
its logical consequences, as for example:

>So the judge should forbid publishing/export of Applied Cryptography
>and the PGP Book with source code, right ?
>

First, IMO, this subject is hard to discuss because it is politically
involved and also applies just to a particular set of countries -- so
it is not based on a "universal" ruling.

Further, I also think it is absurd to try to outlaw cryptography
because it is essential and not just to obtain privacy (as in my
posting on logical semantics and crypto, some months ago [1]). 

In fact, I think that cryptography is needed to provide *secure
routing* [1] (a property that is more basic than secure content and
which I think will be impossible to forbid in the future). However, I
also think that the arguments being thought by each side may carry
their own intrinsic worth.

Further, even though the whole subject is IMO ephemeral because
unworkable, some of those arguments may have a far reaching
consequence and transcend the issue. Should we overlook that? IMO,
no. Even thrash can be recycled ;-)

My remark above was in this line of reasoning. So, it ought not to be
extrapolated to printed books -- I am not at all concerned about the
legal aspects. In fact, laws can be wrong and IMO this is a clear
example. 

But, regarding printed books -- yes, the comment above (and others in
that line) are right. If this logic exercise is carried to its fully
immoral end, then books should not be allowed to carry complete and
workable source code. Which does not show that the argument is
illogical, just immoral. Technically, the argument is sound.

As Hume pointed out a long time ago, if we were guided only by reason
and logic then surely I should prefer to destroy the rest of the
world instead of enduring even a small pain in one of my fingers.
While this shows that logic is not all, it also shows that one cannot
deny logic by moral or ethics but rather define what precedes what in
case of conflict, for each society.

While this can have different answers for different societies, eg
where in some suicide is moral, the cryptography issue may take a
different twist if the link to secure routing is further investigated
and cryptography is not only used just for secure content as it is
today.



Thanks,

Ed Gerck
  
===========
Reference:

[1] http://www.mcg.org.br/trustdef.htm#A.4.1

______________________________________________________________________
Dr.rer.nat. E. Gerck                     egerck@novaware.cps.softex.br
http://novaware.cps.softex.br
    --- Meta-Certificate Group member, http://www.mcg.org.br ---