[3712] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: my two cents
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (EKR)
Sat Dec 5 11:07:43 1998
To: perry@piermont.com
Cc: cryptography@c2.net
From: EKR <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: 04 Dec 1998 19:01:26 -0800
In-Reply-To: "Perry E. Metzger"'s message of "04 Dec 1998 19:27:44 -0500"
"Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com> writes:
> Supposedly, the United States is a democracy. Supposedly, elected
> officials are supposed to respond to the desires of the electorate,
> not the desires of the National Security Agency.
>
> It is time that we explained, clearly and distinctly, to the
> legislative branch that this is *not* a joke, that "balancing the
> interests of law enforcement" is not what the electorate wants, that
> the law enforcement officials have no interests of their own and are
> ALSO the employees of the people.
I'm sure that this is going to an unpopular position, but I think that
your message rests on a mistaken premise; I'm not at all sure that the
populace doesn't want to "balance the interests of law
enforcement". If anything, I suspect that the populace would be
perfectly happy to see crypto completely banned. After all, if that's
what it takes to stop child pornographers and terrorists....
I don't have any direct evidence for this, but I have indirect
evidence for it based on how willing people are in general to
compromise their civil liberties in general, I rather suspect that
they're in favor of crypto restrictions as well. Recent examples
of this include Megan's Law, flag burning, and the popularity
of the CDA.
Naturally, I find this position abhorrent, but I suspect
we're in the minority. That doesn't mean we should lose, of course,
because civil liberties are not decided by majority vote, but
it does mean that we should emphasize tactics that do not demand
on widespread voter support.
-Ekr
[Eric Rescorla ekr@rtfm.com]
