Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.
Re: Dan Gillmor's
Author: Jeremy Bowers Posted: 9/26/1999; 7:19:46 PM Topic: Dan Gillmor's Msg #: 11474 (In response to 11470) Prev/Next: 11473 / 11475
That sounds an awful lot like the "if you criminilize guns, only criminals will have guns" argument that a lot of people reject...
(For the record, I don't reject it.)
Here's a thought: Is there any way to inspect a encrypted transaction and determine the strength of the transaction without attempting to actually break it? (Intuition suggest no, but I can't prove it, which is a big thing in encryption "qbullet.smiley".)
Anyhow, if the answer is no, as I suspect, then they can't catch the people breaking the "encryption strength law" anyhow until they're under suspicion for something else. I haven't got a conclusion for this observation, but surely this means something.
Anyhow, it will be very difficult to enforce this, so I imagine that we'll be seeing some sort of concerted campaign to convince people that Only Criminals Need Encryption. Will there be a concerted effort to counteract that?
There are responses to this message:
- Re: Dan Gillmor's, Sidney Markowitz, 9/27/1999; 8:13:14 AM
- Re: Dan Gillmor's, Kurt Granroth, 9/27/1999; 3:31:47 PM
This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:52:49 PM.
© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.