People have a basic right to privacy. I agree with that. What I do
not agree with is their right to send private messages over a free, public,
and worldwide network. A lot of the guys will not agree with me, but I am
older than most of them, and I do not want an enemy to have ANY THING that
he can use against the United States. I spent 22 years in the US Navy, and
believe in our First Amendment rights (and would die to protect them). But
it's silly to think that someone's freedom of speech is being violated
because they are prohibited from using encryption over the Internet.
Seth gets mad at me when I argue with him but, as I said, Seth is
young. But he is one of my best friends, so I tend only to argue with him
directly. I do not like throwing epithets back and forth since most people
think they have a "poison pen" when they write emails, but would not talk
that way in person. People who know me personally know that I am not afraid
of confrontation, and I speak in person the same way I write. Ask Seth. He
tells me to "calm down" quite a bit, but I also try to be the voice of
reason sometimes, too.
Right now I am focusing on two things, both major events. One, I
am trying to get a good job, which is getting more and more difficult.
Second, and more important, I am trying to make sense of what is happening
in the world now. That is one reason I asked Seth to help me create a
reflector (e-mail message group) called Terrorism in America. You should
join. I am encouraging people of different viewpoints to contribute, and
personally approve each member. If you want to join, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
But now that I have lost my focus, let me simplify my feelings
again. I don't care one iota whether or not we are prohibited from being
able to use strong encryption. It makes absolutely NO difference to me.
Neither of the two above things are affected in the least by this, and I do
not think our personal liberties are at stake. Some think that legislation
against encryption will be a precursor to worse losses of privacy to come.
I do not. The only thing I would not like to happen is for pictures of me
to circulate on the internet in my underwear. Although that might be a good
way to scare off the terrorists!
My respectful regards to those of you undeserving of this monologue.
Sincerely,
James E. Darrough
United State Navy (retired)
but ready to come back if needed...
At 09:07 PM 9/14/2001 -0700, you wrote:
>Thanks, Jim. You are probably right. You should speak up more.
>
>Dennis
>
>
> > From: Jim Darrough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 21:02:24 -0700
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: [EUG-LUG:2776] Re: [[EMAIL PROTECTED]: US Congress already
> discussing
> > bans on strong crypto]
> >
> > I only want to voice my opinion here, not start a debate. So here goes:
> >
> > Encryption is a waste of time for honest people.
> >
> > Regards, Jim Darrough
> >
> > At 10:40 AM 9/14/2001 -0700, you wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 09:49:13AM -0700, Dennis J. Eberl wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I did. Back doors are a good idea. We need strict laws to cover there
> use.
> >>> fsck that, Jacob.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Over and above the civil rights issues, back doors are a technical idiocy.
> >> Any encryption that comes pre-equipped with vulnerabilities will be
> cracked
> >> by the "unauthorized" in short order, and will be as generally useful as
> >> ROT13.
> >> Moreover, it's rather late to stuff the genie back in the bottle; when
> >> effective
> >> crypto is outlawed, the outlaws will continue to use effective crypto.
> >>
> >> Also, since you've apparently got "nothing to hide", would you mind
> posting
> >> your credit card numbers, ATM PINs, account passwords, and teenage
> daughter's
> >> phone number to the list?
> >>
> >> --
> >> UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this
> >> IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED, ESPECIALLY to COMPUTER
> >> BULLETIN BOARDS.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> >> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> >> Version: 6.0.277 / Virus Database: 146 - Release Date: 9/5/2001
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.277 / Virus Database: 146 - Release Date: 9/5/2001
> >
>
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.277 / Virus Database: 146 - Release Date: 9/5/2001
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.277 / Virus Database: 146 - Release Date: 9/5/2001
