From: lwloen@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Larry Loen)
Subject: Re: Limits on the Use of Cryptography?
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 15:29:49 GMT
Reply-To: lwloen@vnet.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester

In article <1992Nov11.061210.9933@cactus.org> Terry Ritter writes:

> Now, your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to defend
> cryptography to ordinary voters, congress people and newspaper
> reporters.  You also need to explain to a relative of one of those
> kids, someone who doesn't own or work with a computer, why the
> government should "allow" private cryptography which could hide
> this sort of information.

Well, in an up or down vote, I don't think the Bill of Rights would
pass nowadays.

It seems that every time we change technology, the Bill of Rights is
up for grabs, even with lawyers that ought to know better.  This is 
another case where the item of concern can be very precisely modelled
with old technology and the old rules, whatever they are, ought to
prevail.  Cryptography has nothing to do with it.

Consider the child molester scenario this way:

    The police bust an alleged child molester, and take possession
    of his body.  They believe that the perpetrator's brain contains a full
    database of young kids who have been *or may be* assaulted.
    That database is invisible.

  Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to defend to the public
  and newspaper reporters why the police should not torture the defendant
  to get at the information.

I assume you agree this version is out of bounds.

Or, again:

    The police bust an alleged child molester, and take possession of his
    wall safe.  They believe that the safe contains a full data base of
    young kids who have been *or may be* assaulted.  They fear that the
    safe is booby-trapped.

  Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to defend to the public
  and newspaper reporters why the police should torture the defendant to
  reveal how to open the safe safely rather than require the police bomb
  squad to have a go at it.

Maybe, just maybe, you have grounds for holding the alleged perpetrator in
some form of contempt for not revealing how to open the safe.  But, is there
anything tangible to back what the police think?  Is there really probable
cause, here?  Besides, are the police totally without resources, here?  Why
does the defendant have to do their job for them?

Did some other coerced confession get this poor schmuck on
the line?  You ought to read (this from memory) MacCauley's
famous book on "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds", 
especially the section on witchcraft to find out how witch hunts really
worked and how broad the public support for this terrifying nonsense was
for how long.  I rather suspect that a lot of our Bill of Rights was put
in place because our founding fathers knew full well what a witch hunt was.

There are limits to majority rule, because sometimes the majority acts like
a mob.

I think if we consider the matter, legal scenarios involving 
cryptography will fit the wall safe model rather well and we can
send people to jail, or torture them for their keys, or whatever the
social decision turns out to be without considering cryptography as
anything different in the decision.

And, I think by the same analogy, disallowing cryptography is about the
same as disallowing a wall safe (or, a safety deposit box in the 
Bahamas, etc.).  The only difference may be that it is a little easier
for people to set up and maybe a little harder for the government to
penetrate.  I don't see the distinction as material for how a just
society is run; I do see it as an issue for lazy governments who think
they have an unfettered right to find out anything about anybody for
any purpose.

-- 
   Larry W. Loen        |  My Opinions are decidedly my own, so please
                        |  do not attribute them to my employer