On Monday 16 October 2006 20:16, Randall R Schulz wrote:
You never answered my question about whether you think no one is entitled to any privacy or secrecy of any sort or if you wish to eradicate and prohibit all cryptography. Do you?
Cryptography is a joke. It is currently unlawful in the United States to send an encrypted message out of the country using a scheme which cannot be broken by the federal government (CIA, NSA, etc). Since encrypted messages could be bounced around the internet globe (without user control) it is therefore unlawful to send an encrypted message (anywhere) which cannot be broken by the federal government. Ergo... there is no encryption and there is really no privacy... words to the wise. I have invented several cryptographic schemes which are effective (call it a hobby) and are quite, well, secret. I cannot use them lawfully. So what is the point... nothing is really *lawfully* secret--- not in the U.S. anyway. If you want to keep a secret, don't publish it. That was not my point in previous posts. The point was more philosophical... is protectionism necessary and should open systems be used to produce closed sources? Should *freedom* encouraging patriots help others use open systems to produce closed sources?
Do you have a hard-line, absolute philosophical position against secrets and private information? Is _your_ life a 100% open book?
My philosophical position is to encourage a free and open society. On the other hand, if you must produce close sources for some noble or personal reason, then don't put them in an electronic media. Self publish them and place them in a folder marked "Confidential Restricted," or other such ridiculous red stamp and hand deliver it to eyes with a "need to know". My hard-line position is to encourage freedom... if you can get it done in an open and free (as in freedom) manner, then great--- otherwise, think it over one more time. -- Kind regards, M Harris <><