The tragedy in NYC

[Amir Herzberg]

Perry said, 
>    I do not want more laws passed in the name of defending my home.
> 
>    I do not want more freedoms eliminated to "preserve freedom".
> 
>    I do not want to trade my freedom for safety. Franklin has said far
>    more eloquently than me why that is worthless.
> 
> If you must do something, send out more investigators to find those
> responsible for this and bring them to justice. Pass no new laws. Take
> away no freedoms. Do not destroy the reason I live here to give me
> "safety". I'd rather die in a terrorist attack.

I agree that there shouldn't be laws limiting crypto research and usage. But
not since `I'd rather die than lose my freedom to use crypto`, which I think
is a reasonable summary of Perry's argument. Most people will not agree; in
fact, most people are willing to expose their privacy to receive low-value
promotions or discount. They will not be willing to risk their lives for
this. 

In fact, if giving up crytpto completely would help substantially to protect
against terror, I'll support it myself. But...

The real argument is simple: there is no evidence or convincing argument why
shutting down crypto will substantially help defend against terrorism. It is
a popular, easy solution, good for politicians as it is an easy `sell` to
the public, but not effective. That's why we should defend against it; the
negligible help it may provide to law-enforcement is not worth its cost in
loss of privacy and commerce, in the loss of freedom, and in the dangers of
abuse by government. 

Best, Amir Herzberg



---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at wasabisystems.com