Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!gnu
From: gnu@utcs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.mail
Subject: Re: Should encrypted radio be legally protected?
Message-ID: <1986Aug30.142414.21634@utcs.uucp>
Date: Sat, 30-Aug-86 14:24:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: utcs.1986Aug30.142414.21634
Posted: Sat Aug 30 14:24:14 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 30-Aug-86 14:40:47 EDT
References: <1632@well.UUCP> <1013@hoptoad.uucp> <1170@utastro.UUCP> <3230@brl-smoke.ARPA> <1044@hoptoad.uucp> <74@mtxinu.UUCP>
Reply-To: gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore)
Organization: University of Toronto Computing Services, general purpose UNIX
Lines: 15
Checksum: 33057

In article <74@mtxinu.UUCP> ed@mtxinu.UUCP (Ed Gould) writes:
>the generation and use of truely secure encryptions.  But suggesting
>that the encryption be the *only* protection is equivalent to saying
>that one should equip ones house with truely secure locks in order to
>keep out burglars.  I would rather see a reasonable lock combined with
>a reasonable breaking-and-entering law.

I am a great fan of breaking-and-entering laws, but I don't believe that
anyone "owns" a piece of the electromagnetic spectrum.  If I am sitting
in my house, what did I "break" or "enter" to receive your signal?  Rather,
your signal entered my house.  If you don't want me to receive it, don't
send it through my house.  (Send it through coaxial cable, for example.)

To rephrase your analogy, you had better equip your car with truly
secure locks if you park it on other peoples' lawns.