At 3:02 PM -0500 3/21/00, Gordon Mott wrote: > >>> in general, the general public profits if some secret algorithm gets >>> known. to be honest, I can't think of a single counter-example. >>As to the counter-example you ask, the general public profits by >>lack of disclosure of the algorithm that allows nuclear bombs >>to be made with 1 pound of enriched uranium. We have less >>nuclear powers. We do not have fewer nuclear powers because the U.S. has a law against reverse-engineering nuclear weapons. In contrast to the U.K, as an example, the U.S. has no "Official Secrets Act." The Supreme Court reaffirmed this in "The Progressive" case, where that publication had been enjoined from publishing an article allegedly giving details about H-bomb construction. My point is not to quibble about nuclear "secrets" but to dispense with the notion that the laws of the U.S. prevent disclosure of algorithms or recipes. Generally there are no such laws. (Obviously there may be for government or contract employees, for secrets literally spirited out of labs, etc. But not for figuring out how things work and then writing about them.) >This is not a very good counterexample. It lies not so much in the >fact that the >algorithm is hidden, but that it takes a halfway intelligent person >with a degree in >chemistry to be able to fool around with nuclear weaponry. The sheeple [ya, I >spelled that wrong intentionally...] Some of us have been using the term "sheeple" for many years. I forget where I first heard it, but it was a long time ago. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
