Jim,
You rock! (and this comming from someone that also doesnt always agree with
you :)
Jamie
> 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
-------------------
-
