to pass laws which senously restrict freedom of data
processing. Rightwing Chnstians are professional
snoopers. "Porsographic" softwarc, computer dat-
ing services, mailing lists of people who read
"dangerous" booLs or rent "dirty" videos, and so on
will be the~r targets.

	Also, liberals are notoriously projudiced ageinst
pnvate enterprise. If anything like the British
database law wi come to pass, it will be because
social acti~sts legislate against "invasion of pn-
vacy" by individuals with access to data.

	A mctory in the l988 election by a liberal cen have
grave consequences. Given the strength of thc "draft
lacocca" movemcnt, it is likely that even if hc
himself doesn't run these people will have a great
deal to ssy in any future Democratic admini-
stration. Price controls, import restnctions and
anti-Japanese sentiments will have a devestating
effect on the offordability of computer hardware.

	3udging from the boards used in today's Apples,
IBM-PCs, and DEC VT240s, about 10% of the
chips usod in American computers are made in El
Salvador. Democratic administrations are notor-
iousJy soft on communism and this source of
computer hardware could dry up by l9g0.

"Whi~e earlier ages gave real
po~itical and economicpower to
Ihose who rode horses or wore
armor or carriedfirearms, to-
day, real power is wielded by
those who can use a computer. "

	On the damestic front, major corporations and
government bodies hsve been arguing about what
Icind of"computer crime" law should be enacted.
Notc that they are not discussing whether but what
and when. The Michigan computer law of 1979
makes it a possible felony to even "attempt to
access... any computer system... or computer
softwarc... without authorizstion.- Yet '.authon-
zstion" is never defined. Later this cen be
interpreted to mtan "permission from the
government." Federal laws will soon be passod
which follow thc same reasoning; nght now they
are argu~ng over the specific language.

	Another threat to personal computing comes
from labor unions. Dunng the Fall of 1985, the CBS
network show 60 Minutes ran a segment called
"Homework" about people (women, mostly) who
n"]cc garments at home and sell them to wholesalers
and jobbers. The manufacture of women's (though
not men's) garments is regulated by t~he federal labor
boards at the behest of the International Ladies'
Garment Worlters' Union The union has been
actively harassing people who make women's
clothes at home. A wbolesaler told the newsguy that
this is just the first step, that the next step will be the
direct re~lation of allhome businesses, forinstance
the computer softwore industry. When asked if this
were trne, a union official said in fact that going
after the home-based computer software industry is
a high prionty!

	Even within the computer industry there are thosc
who have sold out to the Dark Side of the Forte. ln
3anuary of 1986, PC Wor~d carned a quote from
Kevin Jenkins .he chief at Hercules Computer
Technology. According to Jenkins, the idea that the
computer "expands your freedom" and "opens up
new areas of human potential" is just a bunch of
"new wave... nonsense" promulgated by Steve Jobs,
the co-founder of Apple Computers. Jenlrins is
clearly a crypto-fascist who would side with
goveruments and unions to regulate you and your
computer.

	In thesammer of 1985, Michael Brownapplied to
the Software Publishers Association for an award
based on sales of his program. The independent
auditing team reviewed his books and he was slated
to receive a gold-plated plaque for selling over
100,000 units of"Copy II." Then the Software
Publishers Assaciation attempted to take back the

award. "Copy II" is a program that copies other
programs. Part of its functionality is the fact that it
cen break copy-protection schemes. The Software
Publishers Assaciation claims that this leads to
millions of dollars of lost sales. However, many
users need to break such protection in order to makc
archival back-ups of their disks.

	Michael Brown settled out of court. He gat moral
support from troughout thc software industry.
Ilowever, the- Software Publishers Assaciation can
be expected to act like socialists when it comes to
protecting their interests. A free marketeer, Michael
Brown set aside S180,000 for his defense fund.
Verifying the "tragedy of the commons," the SPA
could ouly garner S50,0(10. (The "tragedy of the
commons" is that wh~le "all" may benefit from
something, each will ouly psy in no more than they
must to use a~common resource.") The SPA must
out of necessity turn to the goverument if they hope
to keep their monopoly on software publishing.

	In September of 1986, software industry leaders,
Ashton-Tate, Microsoft and Adapso (Thc Assac-
ation of Data Proeessing Organ~zst~ons), announc-
ed that they will no longer copy-protect software.
Said Microsoft president, Bill Gates, "The customer
won.- Piracy in the 1500s and I600s was caused by
nationalist wars and mercantilist ta}iffs. The
success of pirates on the high seas led to the era of
laissez faire. So, too, has sottware piracy led to
adm~sion by some that force of law is inferiar to
the realities of the marketplace.

	The free marlcet ~mpels toward excellence.
Michael Brown (creator of "Copy lI-) said that his
firm fights piracy by frequently improving their
softwarc. Only psying customers cen be notified of
updates.

	And yet, there is no end to thc list of people who
would limit or dcny your right to compute. You
must bc ready to detend what rights you want and to
extend those rights bewover possible. The alter-
nativc is ignorance.

	In order to defend your nght to compute, all of
your data files should be protected w~th encryption.
On thc onc hand, a crypto-system which rests on
known, historical methods cen bc relatively casy to
crack. On the other hand, there are so many
algonthms, cacb with a host of variations, that
almost any method for secure communication wil1
do the job. The home computer makos it very casy to
switch among a dazen schemes.

%',

