> 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 general. > public. Attempts to control such access is a lost cause. Guns were available to all German citizens in the 1930s. First thing Hitler did, round up the guns. Worked quite well as I understand. > > 2. Forbidding public access to strong encryption is based on > the presumption of guilt of the general populace by the > government. (The argument being used is that if someone > has nothing to hide, then they don't need strong > encryption products; nevermind the individual's right to > privacy.) No it is based upon the fact that all politicians want to control people. Some politicians more than others. "If you do not know what they are doing you can not control them." Terrorist, pedophiles, gun runners, drug dealers, and nefarious characters et al; are only paper tigers used to make erosion of freedoms palatable. > > 3. Individuals -- as well as commercial entities -- have > legitimate needs to safeguard their data against access > to unauthorized parties. It could be said that the government is supposed to do that. In order to do that they must be able to read your electronic transfers. In other words control the process. Whether email, money, jpegs , or whatever the government must have the access to see this info to protect us. It also could be said (and has been) that you should seek redress in court for any wrong instead of protecting yourself. In the U.S. the current (sadly) attitude is that we should stand by like sheep and take it. Then call the police and let them handle it. Many people believe this. It also could be said that the government is supposed to protect the nation. The infidels are inside using electronic means to 'do business' and we must have access. That access must be quick. If everyone uses encryption then the government would waste valuable time getting through the messages of no value on the way to those of value. > > 4. Arguing that individuals should not have access to tools > to safeguard their digital assets is tantamount to arguing > that individuals should not be allowed to have locks on > their doors or safes in their homes. Not really. It is illegal in some parts of the world for people not licensed as locksmiths to posses a locksmith's "tools of the trade". The government could easily say (as they have in the U.S., remember this person is from Australia) that we can have it (whatever it may be) but special people should be able to get in easily. Again this just appeasement, but some would say compromise. > > 5. Arguments that claim that access to strong encryption > should be denied because it potentially benefits the > criminal element (organized crime and terrorists) is > disingenuous at best. Every civil liberty a civilized It is a fact that criminals and the underworld use encryption. Recently the FBI (U.S.) had to use a keystroke logger to crack a drug dealers PGP key to decrypt his files. Thus the case can be made that lives would have been saved had they not had to do this. > nation affords its people can be perverted by the Nations do not afford people any liberty. Of course many persons believe that a people derive their liberty/rights etc... from their government or religion which may be the government. If that is true then the government would decide what is and is not available to the public. Hmmm, sounds like a good starting point for a pro-government paper. > criminal element, but that does not legitimize any > attempt to rescind those civil liberties. Indeed, all Actually it would. If the government's job is to protect you then they would have a legitimate claim to do this. It all depends upon where you believe you rights/liberties/whatever are derived from. Remember that those of us in the U.S. are unique. Australia as far as I know does not have a 'bill of rights'. They have a tradition based upon a monarchy (benevolent or otherwise). We tossed out the crown (with the bath water if you will), they have not. (Granted the crown is mostly symbolic, but a bully pulpit is a powerful thing) > evidence gathered to date clearly indicates that even the > most virulent participants in the al Qaeda terrorist > network do not even use cryptographic or steganographic > software on their data. Well let's think about that. If most people don't use cryptography then no one needs it. If they did they would have it. You get my point. Besides how much cryptography do you need to hijack a plane? Fact is that one terrorist group from a 'backwoods' country does not an argument make. Besides it only takes a few of them using it to do the damage. As you know full well, you only need to encrypt a small amount of info to do damage. Thusly you have to get rid of it all. > > 6. Arguments that use of strong encryption circumvents > criminal investigations are dubious since law enforcement > has already demonstrated the capacity to bug the suspect's > computer to capture keystrokes and thus gain the suspect's > passphrase to their cryptographic products and ultimately > gain access to the encrypted data. Then why have encryption at all. If it is that easy to break then you have no security at all. Sort of like the locksmith we discussed above. Of course you once again completely ignore the time involved in doing what you say they can do. Time equals money or lives or countries, maybe a building with 7000 people in it. You also ignore the fact that you have to have someone actually using the keyboard to catch keystrokes. How would a dead person do this? And what about disks recovered from crime scenes. I doubt the owner is going to come login for your convenience. So we are back to info that is encrypted and possibly not retrievable. Could be the difference between the Sears tower (Sydney Opera house or the bridge. sorry can't remember the name) hitting the ground and a 'bad person' going to the 'gray bar hotel'. > > 7. Restriction of cryptography for individual use would > ultimately have a negative impact on commerce, since So we say yes to terrorism because we don't want to hurt the 'fat cat' businesses man. Well how much of an impact? This is an irrational statement. Black and white if you will. Much like: "I only believe in complete security. No excuse for not being totally up to date". Not all negative impacts are 'bad'. There at times must be trade offs. > all cryptographic products would come under additional > regulation and all commerce would have to account to > various legal and government agencies for every use of > a cryptographic product. This would expose sensitive If you ban it then it can not be used. So this is a non-starter. In the U.S. a company is considered a person (no you don't have to give it Miranda warnings), it would not be long before the government would take it away from them as well. The argument would be they are legally a person therefore they can not have it. Or corporations are hiding criminals using their license for encryption, therefore thwarting law enforcement. So sorry you get no encryption. [note: this is in fact how erosion of liberty occurs. the Left is well versed in the small steps tactic, as well as using the courts to legislate] Which brings up a point how long till cryptography makers start getting sued because someone uses their product. It is already happening to gun companies. If we just got rid of them, then the negative commercial impact caused by lawsuits would disappear. > commercial data to third parties who are not exempt from > corruption and could easily benefit from such data. > > 8. Restriction of cryptographic access for individuals is > done for one reason: the convenience of law enforcement. Or the protection of citizens, or the country, or your farm..... > It would be far wiser to bring law enforcement agencies up > on the technological curve rather than force the > dumbing-down of an entire people. Why not do both? This would be the ultimate. No crypto and be able to break that which is available. Problem solved, the world is safe again. > > 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 justify this stance to > yourself, then why are you taking that position? Mull that over. You mean arrogant. Because the only way to defend your position is to attack it. You may have heard of penetration testing. If you believe you have an impenetrable system, why test it? I am sure you would rip somebody good if they ever said that. If you can not attack your position then you can not defend it. Mull that over. In summary: I do not believe that encryption should be restricted, just as I do not believe guns should be restricted (exceptions noted). I believe that a person's ability to protect his ideas, papers, business, person, friends, property, family; outweigh the government's 'need' to pry or 'be safe from guns'. I do not believe that the government gives me anything. It only takes. The government is not my master, although many who work there think it is. I also believe that the government does nothing for me that does not benefit itself. In other words the special interest groups known as unions, government employees, elected officials, and all the ancillary folks; are nothing more than pigs at a trough. Blood sucking vampires might be a better analogy. Sorry for the long email, this topic is too important to do half-a**ed. If I made some typos or other errors sorry in advance.
