From: ctdonath@gnat.syr.EDU (Carl T. Donath)
Subject: Re: Cryptology and criminals
In-reply-to: linnoise@bigboy's message of 18 Nov 92 04:59:22 GMT
Organization: Syracuse University
	<1992Nov18.045922.8396@cronkite.ocis.temple.edu>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 11:46:16 EST

   From: linnoise@bigboy (LineNoise)

   Why must things be taken to extremes?  Technology that is primarily used to
   bring harm to people or avoid law enforcement agencies should be limited in
   their distribution and monitored closely.  We don't want offensive nuclear
   capability to spread to unstable nations or handguns to be given to people
   with a history of violent crime(s) or mental instability.  On the other hand
   we want to keep the right to bear arms and use them in self defense and 
   promote
   the use of nuclear technology when it comes to non-destructive purposes. The
   same holds with cryptography-- limit it so that the abuse by criminals and
   other hostile bodies will have the capability to misuse it. Allow only those
                                                               ^^^^^^^^^^
   encryption methods defeatable by the law enforcement agencies to distributed
   and outlaw the distribution of more powerful methods.  And enforce laws that
   ^^^^^^^^^^
   will help protect the common man's privacy from those who have no business
   in decrypting his data.


Yes, these are the ideal goals for a safe world. There are, unfortunately,
two devestating problems with trying to make this happen. Come up with an
effective solution to these and you'll win a Nobel Peace Prize.

1. Criminals don't obey laws.

If the government decides that I am a criminal and should not be permitted to 
own a copy of PGP, it won't matter. I'll still have a copy (stored on an
easily concealable floppy), and my situation will motivate me to use it even 
more.

Precedent: cocaine is illegal to posess, use, sell and transport, yet 
anyone who wants it can get it.

As tired and worn out as it is, the quote "if <x> is outlawed, only 
outlaws will have <x>" is absolutely true.

2. Who gets to decide the law?

Real government leaders are not ideal. They are normal people who have been
given great power. Who are they to, on their whim, decide that I cannot
protect myself against eavesdroppers? What if, for a truly good and noble 
reason, I want to encrypt something such that law enforcement agencies cannot
defeat the encryption? Keep in mind, everyone (including government agents) 
has their own ultierior motives and may or may not have your (or my) best
interests in mind. A relevant quote from the Hitchiker's Guide: "Who gets to 
rule if no one who wants to should be allowed to?"



I've been seeing this basic discussion over and over on sci.crypt & talk.
politics.guns. They all come down to the same problem:

   Person 1: "<X> can, and is, used to cause pain and suffering.
              Thus, it should be regulated or banned."

   Person 2: "<X> can, and is, used to prevent pain and suffering.
              Thus, anyone should be allowed to own/use it."

Whether <X> is banned or free, someone will get hurt. 

Welcome to reality.

--
  __________/ ctdonath@rodan.acs.syr.edu  Carl T Donath \________________
 / Why do people assume that this is the first time things have ever     \
/ been this way and things will stay this way forever?                    \