age-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, 4 May 2002 00:19
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: strong encryption - governments denying individuals the
right to use
To all,
I've been following this thread with great interest, agree with most of
the
o
To all,
I've been following this thread with great interest, agree with most of the
opinions, and have enjoyed the common-sense presentations.
The bulk of previous comments supporting public encryption suppression have
presented "security and protection from the bad guys" as the main argumen
> I doubt it, but you missed the point. He's not talking about removing the locks
>altogether but that he can live without a cipher lock. Certainly we all want to
>protect our personal information as much as our personal property. And because there
>are
bad guys out there who will use whate
+++ Williams, Larry [01/05/02 14:36 -0500]:
> -Original Message-
> From: ken
> >+++ Davis, Don (CPOCEUR) [29/04/02 08:22 +0200]:
> >> If not having 1024-bit encryption available to send my private information
> >> over the web is the part of the cost, I can live with that.
> >Can you l
lanning atrocities.
I wish they could, but they can't.
D. Weiss
CCNA/MCSE/SSP2
-Original Message-
From: Jay D. Dyson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 7:36 AM
To: Davis, Don (CPOCEUR)
Cc: ken; Security-Basics List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: strong encryption
ox? ;-) I think you have some great start-up information now! Take care!
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: ken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 7:03 AM
>To: Davis, Don (CPOCEUR)
>Cc: Jay D. Dyson; Security-Basics List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subje
DON DAVIS WROTE:
>I believe the government's stance is not so much to deny the individual
>strong encryption tools, but rather to prevent or retard it's dissemination
>to foreign governments whose traffic, shall we say, we prefer to be
>breakable. In my opinion, that's the long and short of the "w
Jay,
Only addressing one of your points:
> Seems a bit silly to take away
>crypto use for the average citizen when it hasn't even been demonstrated
>that crypto is being put to ill use.
See United States v. Scarfo, Criminal No. 00-404 (D.N.J.) at:
http://www.epic.org/crypto/scarfo.html
Grante
Just a minor nit - that particular method is nowhere near "assured".
That has been the topic of espionage for a few thousand years.
"Information Systems" security is a LOT more complex than merely
"Information Technology" security.
Think "spies", don't think "computers"...
Jim
"Jay D. Dyson"
o:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 7:03 AM
To: Davis, Don (CPOCEUR)
Cc: Jay D. Dyson; Security-Basics List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: strong encryption - governments denying individuals the
right to use
+++ Davis, Don (CPOCEUR) [29/04/02 08:22 +0200]:
> I believe the governmen
RE: strong encryption - governments denying individuals the right
to use
> Those in the USA are familiar with the old NRA bumperstickers about guns.
> Truth is, it's just as true with encryption. "If We Outlaw
> Encryption, Only
> Outlaws Will Have Encryption"
You are ri
+++ Davis, Don (CPOCEUR) [29/04/02 08:22 +0200]:
> I believe the government's stance is not so much to deny the individual
> strong encryption tools, but rather to prevent or retard it's dissemination
> to foreign governments whose traffic, shall we say, we prefer to be
> breakable. In my opinio
gt; If not having 1024-bit encryption available to send my private information
> over the web is the part of the cost, I can live with that.
>
> -Original Message-----
> From: Jay D. Dyson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 7:51 AM
> To: Davis, Don (CPOCEUR
> Those in the USA are familiar with the old NRA bumperstickers about guns.
> Truth is, it's just as true with encryption. "If We Outlaw
> Encryption, Only
> Outlaws Will Have Encryption"
You are right it's just as true. As in patently un-true.
Law Enforcement will also have encryption (and gu
Hi Trina,
There's a good book by Simon Singh called "code book" which explains the
reason why governments (Especially the U.S.) are against strong encryption
(among other topics). I think the major reason is because they want the
ability to unencrypt your files if you're a criminal.
Prehaps you
I realize that the general list response of "you should argue the other
side" is not going to do you much good. Often we're forced to argue the
"illogical" side of an argument, and this ability can be very useful in the
real world (ask any defense lawyer).
Here's some suggestions for you:
1. F
|
| Subject: RE: strong encryption - governments denying individuals the |
| right to use|
>---|
I thi
rry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 8:58 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: strong encryption - governments denying individuals the
right to use
I think I would start the project by jotting down all the reasons one might
want strong encryption,
Trina, I am afraid you will find most on this list could not - in any way -
support anti-encryption efforts. Several have given you good, solid
information on why the idea itself is absurd. There are so many tools out
there already; what are they going to do - go door-to-door and confiscate?
Th
On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 12:08:54PM -0700, Jay D. Dyson wrote:
> Those are the biggest reasons why you will be hard-pressed to find
> any defense for your position.
>
> And if I may be so bold, I'd like to ask this: if you're taking a
> position on this, but you can't personally justif
I beg to differ; any stance is defensible.
-Original Message-
From: Jay D. Dyson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 9:09 PM
To: Security-Basics List
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: strong encryption - governments denying individuals the
right to use
[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 7:51 AM
To: Davis, Don (CPOCEUR)
Cc: Security-Basics List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: strong encryption - governments denying individuals the
right to use
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 29 Apr 2002, Davis, Don (CPOCEU
> That stance is indefensible. The reasons against this stance are
> thus:
Oh Please. All stances are defensible. They may not be rational or possible
to implement from our point of view; they can certainly be defended.
>
> 1. Strong encryption is already available to the gener
son [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 9:09 AM
To: Security-Basics List
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: strong encryption - governments denying individuals the
right to use
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I
24 matches
Mail list logo
