I'm going to have to drop out of this thread... Most of us are a bit too close to the subject, and we're obviously of two different minds. I don't advocate invasion of privacy or total governmental control in every aspect of our lives, however from a national security standpoint, I'll accept not having strong encryption as opposed to the possible alternatives.
dd P.S. Trina: Are you starting to feel like you may have opened Pandora's box? ;-) 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] Subject: Re: strong encryption - governments denying individuals the right to use +++ 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 opinion, that's the long and short of the "why." You've got to be kidding. Who are these governments that wouldn't use strong crypto because the US says not to? Do you really think that they can't get it? PGP/GnuPG are freely available worldwide - so any number of other implementations. Any tourist could buy software in the USA and take it home / upload it somewhere and go completely undetected. They only need one copy to distribute to their friends. If this wasn't the case - ASFAIK, they could use one time pads to ensure a very high degree of security, if that is what they were in need of, and this doesn't even need a computer, never mind access to software - they need a pencil, paper and some time. Maybe the US government should consider restricting these items too? Cryptography wasn't invented in the US - there are other ways to obtain it, like write your own implementations, use implementations from friendly countries. Remember - these are foreign goverments we're talking about, and would be able to through large amounts of resources at the problem. I think the foreign governments reason is nonsense - I think the real reason is so that the US can restrict the use of crypto with foreign commercial entities that have dealings with the USA. Draw your own conclusions. > 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. It would cost you a lot more than that - this would be a terrible invasion of your privacy, and theft of your civil liberties. The government is not there to tell you what you may and may not do, nor is it there to 'keep you safe'. If an individual is compelled to testify in court - as a witness, say, and not in their own defense - there is already an existing mechanism in place to compell them to reveal their secrets if they are unwilling - why is this different from what they might possess and have encrypted? Technology is used far too frequently as a smoke-screen to hide the real issue. If a mind-probe existed, would it be ok for it to be used on people if you had a search warrant? > 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 live without the locks on your house / car / safe? Would you just leave all of your money out in the garden under a bush? Are these things that you would be willing to put up with? What if the police could randomly smash your door down and do a 'security check' without a warrant? Would that make you feel safer? How about indefinate detention without trial if you are a 'suspect'? All of these things are very real both in the past and present, and some a lot closer to home than you might think. The goverment has no business dictating what citizens say to other citizens, and the medium that they choose to say it through. Would you be willing to have a govenment agent on the phone with you everytime you made a phone call, or would this upset you even the slightest bit? It would be a way to make sure that nobody used a phone to do anything 'wrong'. -k
