| gabriel rosenkoetter on Sat, 15 Feb 2003 06:50:42 -0500 |
|
On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 07:14:31PM -0500, Paul wrote:
> OK. Image that this thread is being monitored.
Feh. Who cares about this list; if the government would take notice
of any mailing lists I'm on, it'd be cypherpunks and
cryptography@wasabisystems.com.
> Is "free speech" affected by the thought that the government is
> listening in and might come knocking on your door because you lead
> them to believe that you might be using encryption?
Mine's not. And I don't have to lead them to believe anything; I PGP
sign every email, so I'm demonstrably using encryption. (Signing is
no different than enciphering; it's just that you encipher a hash of
your message to a key that anyone who wants it can have.)
> Having knowledge of encryption could be compared to having the
> tools to commit a crime, especially when encryption itself is a
> crime.
First, no, having knowledge can only be compared to having
knowledge. We don't lock locksmiths up because they know how to pick
a lock.
Second, no, having tools is not a crime, as my legally purchased and
legally owned lockpick set demonstrates.
Your worry, then, is that the government will MAKE having tools be
illegal; that won't fly. That's presumptive guilt, against most
things our judicial system stands for. And if there's anything that
moves slower than the US legislature, it's the US judicial system.
> Does encryption twart crime more so than enable crimes to be committed?
Who cares? It enables privacy. My privacy is more important than my
government's need to know, if those old pieces of paper are to be
believed. ("... by the people, for the people...")
On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 07:23:06PM -0500, Paul wrote:
> What is a "clipper chip"?
You should really read up on the history of this conversation. Use
Google.
--
gabriel rosenkoetter
gr@eclipsed.net
Attachment:
pgpAUYatpK8ml.pgp
|
|