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
nce over the last 5
years,
> > Sept. 11th wouldn't have happened. Just because we're not engaged
> actively
> > in a war at the moment doesn't mean that we don't have enemies.
> >
> > If not having 1024-bit encryption available to send my private
informatio
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
governments denying individuals the right
to use
Hi all
I am hoping that someone out there may be able to assist me with my
assignment.
I am having to write a position paper on - should our government
(Australian) deny individuals the use of strong encryption?
Unfortunately I have challenged mysel
ts
where the government actually has a chance of maintaining some control.
--SG
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 8:19 PM
Subject: strong encryption - governments denying individuals the right to
use
>
|
| 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
Hi all
I am hoping that someone out there may be able to assist me with my
assignment.
I am having to write a position paper on - should our government
(Australian) deny individuals the use of strong encryption?
Unfortunately I have challenged myself and decided that I would support the
idea of
26 matches
Mail list logo
