Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!hplabs!tektronix!reed!nscpdc!don
From: don@nscpdc.UUCP (Don McGlauflin)
Newsgroups: net.crypt
Subject: Re: Some comments on the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (long)
Message-ID: <603@nscpdc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 18-Sep-86 12:19:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: nscpdc.603
Posted: Thu Sep 18 12:19:29 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Sep-86 05:20:40 EDT
References: <1031@frog.UUCP> <450001@hpldsla.HP.COM>
Reply-To: don@nscpdc.UUCP (Don McGlauflin)
Organization: NSC Portland Development Center, Portland Oregon
Lines: 63

In article <450001@hpldsla.HP.COM> dclouser@hpldsla.HP.COM (Dave Clouser) writes:
>
>Modulating an RF carrier with an audio signal certainly makes it hard to
>hear the audio part, unaided.  The reason that we don't consider this a
>form of encryption is that one can buy the "decoder" cheaply and readily
>(at least in the US), for many varieties of broadcast signals.  As
>technology becomes availible to the public, we must adapt to the
>changes.  Radio signals must have seemed pretty secure to the military
>when they first were used.  But as more people began using them, the
>security waned, so we developed ways to encrypt them further.  Now,
>commercial companies facing the same situation are asking for legal
>protection, instead of solving the technological problem.
>
>The burden of protecting one's data should fall on oneself, and not on
>possible listeners.  Laws preventing someone from taking advantage of
>something they heard, that the sender did not wish known, are already on
>shakey enough ground, as far as enforcement.  We don't need more laws
>that are even more difficult to enforce.
>
>All too often, as the world changes, and we can do things more easily,
>people or corporations turn to the government to pass laws to protect
>their old ways.  If a cable company doesn't want their broadcasts
>intercepted by non-subscribers, make them difficult to intercept.  If
>the first solution used is overcome by an advance in technology,
>(satellite antennae), don't ask the government to pass a law to solve the
>problem.  Such laws may cost more in the long run than the
>technology to encrypt the signals, and they erode our freedom.  Instead,
>try for a longer-term technological solution, the next time.  Better yet,
>use the cheap solution for as long as you can without losing money on it,
>then switch to a better one.
>
>Passing a law against something has seldom prevented criminals from doing
>it, or getting it, or using it.  The technological solutions still have to
>be found, anyway.  The idea that limiting the availability of sophisticated
>technology will prevent its falling into the "wrong" hands is silly.
>Look how successful we've been with nuclear technology.  Sure, most
>terrorists don't have nuclear weapons, but it's not because they can't find out
>how to make them.  It's because it's hard to get fuel for them.  And plenty
>of "wrong" hands have gotten hold of nuclear weapons, anyway.
>
>This is my opinion, and as such, is important only to me.
>
>
>Dave Clouser
>Hewlett-Packard
>Scientific Instruments Division
>Palo Alto, CA  94304

********* SOMEBODY FINALLY HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD! **********

Sorry about including the whole article, but it deserves to read again.

Here's an interesting analogy: If a woman stands naked in a public place,
who is more likely to get in trouble for it? HER, for indecent exposure?
Or YOU, for looking at her?

Flames to /dev/null, please.


                       "Epoxy can be cured"
    Don McGlauflin 			nsc!nscpdc!don
    National Semiconductor		tektronix!reed!nscpdc!don
    MaBell: (503) 629-4443