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 "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.
Don, Let's just be hypothetical a minute. Today, let's say every government in the world banned strong encryption. My question for you - and those saying things similar to what you said - is this: Do you REALLY BELIEVE with all the strong encryption already all over the world that terrorist groups would not be able to get their hands on a copy? I mean, seriously, it takes adding PGP, KREMLIN, DRIVECRYPT, BESTCRYPT, etc. as an attachment and -- voila! -- terrorists have strong encryption! Laws be damned! You're not supposed to be able to get cracked warez software either - it's against the law! BUT, can I get it? Of course. Therefore, my question, WHY make it illegal after it's already available (and always will be) and HOW would another law saying this or that (this time banning strong encryption) make you "safe"?????? Outlawing anything has shown it doesn't keep it out of the hands of the people who want it for illicit purposes. Heroin? Cocaine? Certain weapons? Seriously, why do you think a "law" would keep encryption out of the hands of the evil-doers and make you feel "safer"????
