From: gardner@convex.com (Steve Gardner)
Subject: Re: the Right of Privacy
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 14:58:38 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <1992Nov15.065352.2764@cactus.org> ritter@cactus.org (Terry Ritter) writes:
> Not now.  But future legislation could restrict the right to use
> cryptography to those who are willing to accept the possible audit
> of their ciphered information under due process.
	I think it has been shown that the toothpaste is out of the
	tube.  This is totally unenforceable.

> I guess the thing I find most irritating about this post is the
> attitude that somehow *you* get to decide what rules you will obey,
> or what you will *allow* government to do.  This seems strangely
> unlike the "rule of law" under which I must operate.
	What I have found most irritating about your posts in this
	string is your implicit assumption that we must bend our
	will to the government, no matter how ridiculous the demands.
	The simple fact is that our founding fathers would have done
	no such thing and they would be ashamed of the level of
	complacency and passivity on the part of modern americans.
	Every year around this time of year (veterans day) people 
	wax eloquent about the sacrifices made to keep us free.
	Does anyone really listen??  I hope that when the time comes
	to force this corrupt and bureaucratic government-by-security
	agency to give up the intrusive powers it has acquired all of
	us will be up to the task.  The enemies aren't foreign anymore
	folks.  They live here and they have an enormous security 
	apparatus with almost nothing to do (now that the USSR is
	history).  Where do you think these folks (who, after all want
	to keep their well paid jobs) will turn their attention?

> I'm really too old to be impressed by a swaggering attitude about
> what you will or will not permit government to do.  If such a law
> passes, you will comply or go to jail.  You can have a good swagger
> there.
	You sound like you approve of tyranny.  You actually seem to 
	sympathize with the government don't you? 

> The original reason for this thread was to prepare for a
> legislative contest by finding the best arguments against the
> unhindered use of cryptography, and then trying to defeat them.
	Poor soul.  You still believe in Santa Claus.

> Apparently, we must first teach the rule of law and the concept
> that legislation can prevent one from doing things which one
> wants to do.  It sounds a little like teaching maturity.
	Right.  Rule of law.  Worry about the rule of law when our
	government begins to obey it.  Look at the BNL scandal.  Good
	grief, why is the law just for citizens and not for the
	government?  You pretent to teach maturity!  If *you* would
	look around you, you would see that the last followers of
	the almighty rule of law are OUTSIDE of government.  
	Slavish worship of the rule of law when it is only obeyed by
	the "serfs" is what you are advocating.  What would you have
	done at the Boston Tea Party?  "Oh, boys, you're violating the
	law.  You're going to get all that nice tea wet.  Our King isn't
	going to like that.  He might put you in jail.  You won't be
	getting any tea in jail. Do stop.  I beseech you to stop."
	;-) ;-)

	Rule of law?  Nice concept wish it worked at the highest levels.


						smg