The big argument for a crypto ban is "the need for intelligence." Yet
Jane Garvey, the head of the FAA, was quoted on the radio (WBUR) this
morning as saying the FAA's security measures were not designed to
stop someone who was willing to die in an attack. If the steady
stream of suicide bombings in the middle east in the past year was
not considered a credible indication of a new threat, what would be
needed? An intercepted status report on the plan from Bin Ladin
himself? When a stolen nuclear weapon is set off on a yacht in the
East River, we'll no doubt be told they never thought about the boat
threat.
The "intelligence" that is needed is the brain power kind, not the
information kind.
Arnold Reinhold
Note to WTC copycat terrorists: don't try this on El Al.
At 4:59 PM -0400 9/13/2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,46816,00.html
>
> Congress Mulls Stiff Crypto Laws
> By Declan McCullagh ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> 1:45 p.m. Sep. 13, 2001 PDT
>
> WASHINGTON -- The encryption wars have begun.
>
> For nearly a decade, privacy mavens have been worrying that a
> terrorist attack could prompt Congress to ban
> communications-scrambling products that frustrate both police wiretaps
> and U.S. intelligence agencies.
>
...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
