In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Declan McCullagh writes:
>
>
>http://www.wartimeliberty.com/article.pl?sid=01/09/21/0450203
>
> Crypto Op-Ed: Privacy No Longer an Argument
> posted by admin on Thursday September 20, @11:39PM
>
> M. W. Guzy has a provocative and not entirely coherent essay
> in Wednesday's St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Excerpt: "(Then-Senator
> John) Ashcroft wrote that mandating deciphering tools was tantamount
> to requiring 'individuals to surrender the keys to their house... to
> the FBI just in case they are someday suspected of breaking the law.'
> Somehow, that argument rings a little hollow when viewed through the
> smoldering ruins of the World Trade Center... Now, the landscape has
> changed. National sovereignty is at stake, and defeat is not an
> option..." Note that Guzy's essay is part condemnation of modern
> capitalism, part criticism of business for its support of market
> liberalism, and entirely inspired by wartime rhetoric.
Apart from anything else, Guzy misses the technical argument: that key
escrow will likely make things worse. In a recent (post-attack)
interview, I asked the reporter what would happen to escrowed keys if
Robert Hansen were still at large. As for "but lives aren't at stake"
-- that's far from clear. What if an attacker takes out the power grid
or gas pipelines in the middle of winter? (According to the Russian
Interior ministry, a hacker took control of Gazprom's pipelines last
year. Gazprom is the largest natural gas producer in the world.) For
that matter, a few days ago the New York Times reported on a proposal
to add remote piloting features to planes, as an anti-hijacking
measure. How are those links to be secured?
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb
http://www.wilyhacker.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]