[Gllug] Editors

[Mike Brodbelt]

Tom Gilbert wrote:
> 
> Crytography is the pocket that can't be searched, it's the drug dealer
> who can stand there, silently grinning while the police try vainly to
> open his magic pocket or search his magic flat. I for one believe you
> need a special case to deal with such a situation.

The question is not whether or not cryptography is a special case, but
how far you are willing to go in sacrificing people's rights because of
it. I do not believe your argument holds water - the same could be used
to justify almost anything. Let's look at a few possibilities:-

You have the right not to self-incriminate, unless you used
cryptography.....

You have the right to privacy, but because you choose to protect your
privacy cryptographically, you are forced to give it up.....

You have the right to not be subjected to unreasonable search and
seizure, but you were using cryptography, so you must be a criminal
anyway, and thus you forfeit that right....

Using cryptography is a choice, and it is one I make to protect my
privacy. You, my neighbour, my government - all have *no* right to
invade that privacy. If I am *proven* guilty of a crime, then I will
accept forfeiture of (some) of my rights. I do not accept the need to
forfeit *any* rights purely on suspicion.

Your arguments are the first step on a slippery slope - it's so easy to
say "we need a special case". Imagine what the US constitution would be
worth if there were "special case" exceptions littered through it. There
is no technology so disruptive that a government should be allowed to
ride roughshod over the rights of its citizens - in the absence of those
rights, you no longer live in a democratic society.

Living in a free society requires responsibility from citizens - a
willingness to accept the consequences of their actions, and to accept
that it is their duty to discharge their own responsibilities, and not
the duty of society to nanny those who are unwilling or unable to take
responsibility for their own actions. 

If you want your children to be safe, then it is your job as a parent to
monitor their environment, and protect them from harm. It is not your
place to suggest that the rest of the society you live in should
sacrifice freedoms so that you don't have to bother putting in the
effort to look after your kids properly. The same goes for censorship,
and all the other "special cases". As Jefferson(?) said, the price of
freedom is eternal vigilance. If you are not happy with that, find a
dictatorship where the ruling caste has an ideology that matches your
own, and enjoy....

Mike.

-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug