You are right, but due to the fact that, there is no evidence that encryption was / is used in the terrorist acts, therefore such precaution of disabling the citizen to have private convo's and the lack of trust in the integrity of those who can / will crack their pvt messages does, I mean really does offend. <- and hey it's just my view!
Regards, --------- Muhammad Faisal Rauf Danka Chief Technology Officer Gem Internet Services (Pvt) Ltd. web: www.gem.net.pk voice: 92-021-111-GEMNET Chief Security Analyst Applied Technology Research Center (ATRC) web: www.atrc.net.pk voice: 92-021-4548323, 92-021-4546077 "Great is the Art of beginning, but Greater is the Art of ending. " ------BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK---- Version: 3.1 GCS/CM/P/TW d- s: !a C++ B@ L$ S$ U+++ P+ L+++ E--- W+ N+ o+ K- w-- O- PS PE- Y- PGP+ t+ X R tv+ b++ DI+ D G e++ h! r+ y+ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ --- "Davis, Don (CPOCEUR)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >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 _____________________________________________________________ --------------------------- [ATTITUDEX.COM] http://www.attitudex.com/ --------------------------- _____________________________________________________________ Run a small business? Then you need professional email like [EMAIL PROTECTED] from Everyone.net http://www.everyone.net?tag
