rhetorical trickery

["Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>]

I noticed a rhetorical trick/trap that I've seen a lot lately, in the
recent article posted about Phil Zimmermann.

there is an infamous case of a child pornographer or pedophile in
California that is sometimes cited by law enforcement representatives
as a good example of the evils of encryption: supposedly he encrypted
his diary and it couldn't be unlocked by them. this was mentioned in
the article.

but I have a question: how did they know it was his diary?

I've noticed that people tend to often make conceptual leaps like
this that are wholly unjustified. it is easy to get their opposition
to bite down on the trap, when they start arguing about things like
"well, everyone should be free to encrypt whatever they like".

the next time you run into someone using arguments with words like
"criminals" in it, ask them, "how do you know they are criminals"?
when you use their terminology, and argue in terms of it, you have
almost already lost the argument.

there is a big mindset in law enforcement to see "suspects"
as "criminals".  but that is mistaking means and ends. the process
identifies criminals in the end, after a trial, but at no prior
date.

here's another example: I was watching a talk show in which the
recent Israeli bombing was discussed by a bunch of very obviously
frenzied commentators who were calling for Arafat's head on a stick.
one of them insisted that our government had given the names of
the involved terrorists to Arafat some time ago and that he did nothing.

well, the question is: how do we know those names on the list are
the actual terrorists? how do we know Arafat did nothing?

but the other commentators were totally lost this basic rhetorical trap.
they said, "well, assuming what you say is true, then... blah blah".
but the obvious question is, "how do we know these names mean anything"?

there is an amazing tendency in our culture in elsewhere not to 
question authority. when we see some law enforcement agent at a 
press conference, and they talk about "criminals", the press 
immediately latches onto the terminology and asks things like "when
will they be caught"? etc. instead of, "how do you know they are
culpable?"

in crypto arguments as well where there is a lot of emotional 
rhetoric, I have noticed people have a tendency to try to debunk
things that require no debunking, such as the FUD that has been
sown over that infamous CA pedophile.  the test is avoiding
tricky rhetorical traps. there are some battles that don't need
to be fought. just remember that calm, deadly retort whenever
you hear someone getting excited, and ask them, "how do you know
they are his diaries?"