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. Focus your definition on something that the government can actually control. Many "strong" algorithms are already spread across the internet, and new algorithms will travel through legal and illegal channels almost as quickly as they are created. State this fact in your paper, and then indicate that any efforts to limit this would only waste time and money, while not providing any additional security. Something the government can track and control is the purchase and transport of powerful computer systems which are capable of cracking strong encryption. 2. State the reasons it would be good to control encryption products (the standard terrorist/criminal/spy argument), but then point out why legislation and/or policy is not going to have an effect on these groups (these groups aren't going to follow the rules anyway). It wouldn't be very popular, but you could have a system that would identify accounts that send large amounts of encrypted email, and then target them for other types of surveillance (please, no flames. I know this is a horrible idea from a privacy standpoint...). You could also set up security borders in email systems which would not allow encrypted traffic to pass though, or it could selectively allow encrypted traffic ( allow encrypted email from: *.gov.au to: *.gov.au, deny from: *.gov.au to: *.com,*.net,etc...). Again, a horrible idea from the civil liberties point-of-view, but it is controllable for now. Of course, the criminal/spy/terrorist networks already have ways of hiding encrypted messages in seemingly normal traffic, but if you really wanted to stop this traffic, the only way is to determine ways to detect it at specific boundaries, and to stop the traffic there. Best of luck to you. Remember to focus on what is logically defensible. Do not ignore the other side's arguments, but attempt to address them from your side of the topic. The "other side" has won many points of this argument many times over. Concede the points that you must, and focus on the points 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 > 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 the Government denying individuals the right to use strong > encryption. Only problem is I can't find any information that explicitly > supports this argument, nor am I sure what I should put in this 'Position > Paper'. > > Any ideas, any at all? > > Sincerely, > > Trina > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________ ___ > Unencrypted electronic mail is not secure and may not be authentic. > If you have any doubts as to the contents please telephone to confirm. > > This electronic transmission is intended only for those to whom it is > addressed. It may contain information that is confidential, privileged > or exempt from disclosure by law. Any claim to privilege is not waived > or lost by reason of mistaken transmission of this information. > If you are not the intended recipient you must not distribute or copy this > transmission and should please notify the sender. Your costs for doing > this will be reimbursed by the sender. > ____________________________________________________________________________ ___
