Re: the police state cometh....

lee wrote:

>Actually, I don't think so. Rather the failure (or refusal) to see the
>bigger picture is either narrow-minded or pollyanna-ish (or both).
>
>It's the 'slippery slope' argument. Disregarding whether or not it was
>appropriate in this case, this decision will now
>be used as precedent in future cases that will eventually make the use
>of (at least) certain types of encryption (file, container, email, ???)
>prima facie evidence of criminal, treasonous or terrorist intent and
>sympathies. If not out-and-out illegal. This is particularly dangerous
>in these days of the so-called U-SAP-RIOT and similar efforts to
>undermine the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
>
>
>
>>Well, you mis-characterize the situation.
>>
>>
You could be right. However, the terrorists have guns but I don't see
anyone saying we should take guns away from people.

Encryption is big business. Who is going to tell Cisco to stop selling
hardware VPN's because they could be used in a crime? Microsoft also has
VPN software to encrypt remote connections to the office network. Who
wants to take on Microsoft?

I still think we are in no danger of becoming a police state.
---------
To unsubscribe, send email to <aklug-request@aklug.org>
with 'unsubscribe' in the message body.
Received on Thu May 26 11:23:35 2005