"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a
little temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
Fill me in on how taking encryption away from us will protect us from them,
as they will still have it. We have an example in your own words.
From: Davis, Don
>Releasing strong encryption to the public would endanger this, as it would
instantly wind up in the hands of other
>governments... When PGP was released, it was done so from Germany, I
think, to "get around" the problem,
>and was immediately picked up all over the place.
So basically taking away encryption from us ensures that it get distributed
elsewhere anyway?
We need encryption. We need to protect our information. It's not even that I
want to hide my data from the government. It's more that I need to protect
the data from our own employees, other Corporations all it takes is one flaw
in a OS (code red /nimda anyone) to make my data readable by the world if I
have no other means to protect myself. Trust only goes so far. Most computer
information theft comes from inside the corporation.
Larry Offley
PS Excuse any spelling I was in a hurry.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Davis, Don (CPOCEUR)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jay D. Dyson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Davis, Don (CPOCEUR)"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Security-Basics List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2002 11:22 PM
Subject: RE: strong encryption - governments denying individuals the right
to use
> 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 "why."
>
> Does this cost us as individuals the right to use strong encryption?
Sure.
> Big deal. It's part of what keeps us safe in the country we live in. If
> we'd spent a little bit more money on intelligence 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 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)
> 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 (CPOCEUR) wrote:
>
> > I beg to differ; any stance is defensible.
>
> While we can't argue that opinion, but I would like to see your
> counterpoints to the points which were enumerated in my original reply.
>
> That something may be defensible is a matter of debate which rests
> upon the logic and fact utilized to buttress the defense. If the logic is
> flawed and the facts are in error, then there is no actual defense and the
> original assertion on the matter being indefensible stands.
>
> - -Jay
>
> ( ( _______
> )) )) .--"There's always time for a good cup of coffee"--.
>====<--.
> C|~~|C|~~| (>------ Jay D. Dyson -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------<) | =
|-'
> `--' `--' `- O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous. - Voltaire -' `------'
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (SunOS)
> Comment: See http://www.treachery.net/~jdyson/ for current keys.
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAjzM3y4ACgkQGI2IHblM+8E0sQCfZq/uHzHidOrLlnhl6I+RxlcJ
> EmgAn3dEY0I+jtPcn1IOQMAkk4MpIRcF
> =Z8tc
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
