Newsgroups: sci.lang,talk.politics.crypto,alt.security.pgp
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!news.duke.edu!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news1.digital.com!decwrl!amd!netcomsv!uu4news.netcom.com!netcomsv!uu3news.netcom.com!ixnews1.ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!david
From: david@sternlight.com (David Sternlight)
Subject: Re: "Speech" vs "Language"
Message-ID: <david-2204961303340001@nntp.netcom.com>
Sender: netnews@mork.netcom.com
Nntp-Posting-Host: sternlight.com
Organization: DSI/USCRPAC
X-Newsreader: Yet Another NewsWatcher 2.2.0b7
References: <Pine.ULT.3.91.960422112432.22478C-100000@xdm011>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 20:03:34 GMT
Lines: 70

In article <Pine.ULT.3.91.960422112432.22478C-100000@xdm011>, Jeffrey
Goldberg <J.Goldberg@Cranfield.ac.uk> wrote:


> Also to fill in some of the characters,
> David Sternlight mostly supports restriction of crypto technology 

That is false. I support restriction of the EXPORT of crypto technology
that would interfere with the US ability to gain valuable intelligence and
law enforcement data. On the domestic side, which is the "mostly" by
volume or value, I do not support restriction of civilian crypto
technology.

>and
> posts often to this point on alt.security.pgp

Better reread my posts if you think that.

> (PGP is an encryption
> system) instead of on talk.politics.crypto where it really belongs.

Now you're clearly slinging propaganda instead of presenting the situation
fairly. Mostly my posts are in response to others who have raised a topic
there. The burden of starting the discussion there is theirs, not mine.

Further, the complaints are very far from even-handed. When someone posts
something off-topic to alt.security.pgp with which is consistent with an
anti-government, 'license rather than liberty', or 'deaf to everything in
the Constitution except the First Amendment' view, there are no
complaints. When arguments contrary to such views are posted, there are
suddenly shrill cries of "off topic!" from those who are unable to refute
those arguments.

Finally, the pgp group, like it or not, has also long been a venue for
issues related to government regulation of crypto--due to pgp's early
history which involved both overt patent infringement and overt violation
of export law.

> He beleives that the decision will and should be overturned.

True.

> Charlie Mingo is one of the many people who disagree with Sternlight,
> and posts follow-ups to the wrong place.

Here I must defend Charlie (and myself). There is a simple principle of
fairness that responses, especially when one is singled out in the matter
being responded to, should appear in the venues where the matter being
responded to first appeared.

<Mingo and Sternlight substantive comments omitted>

I'm going to respond to Mingo where he posted. Readers of sci.lang.talk
will have to read alt.security.pgp to see it since I'm not going to
cross-post that. It's Goldberg's doing to bring sci.lang,.talk into this
discussion. It's his right to cross post as he likes but there's something
hypocritical in taking a thread on law and crypto, and diffusing it more
widely while at the same time complaining about it's being in
alt.security.pgp, where many readers are interested in and post to the
topic.

I have restored alt.security.pgp to the distribution list for that reason.
As a matter of interest, I read that group but not talk.politics.crypto. I
venture to suggest there are others who do so as well--in order to get
"hard" matter related to PGP and regulation while avoiding political talk
cum political talk. There is no doubt that export law is strongly related
to PGP--in fact PGP was the presenting symptom in much current activity
around that topic.

David
