Sorry. Jay's right. Sure, they may use encryption, but they don't need to use anything so neat as a 3DES algorithm.
Example: (Suggested by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle way back when) Take any lengthy document. In meatspace, make sure your counterpart has the exact same document. Write your message in the form of Page#Line#word#. Anything not found in the document gets spelled out with Page#Line#Word#Character#. Tada! An unbreakable code. Add the use of an electronic document on a zip disk stored in a deguasser box hooked up to a simple intrusion detection system (meatspace, not cyberspace) and a quick little C+ lookup script to encode and decode a plain text message, and there's no effort necessary at all to send encrypted messages that would piss off even the NSA's ability to crack cipher. :elpmaxE Unfortunately, terrorists do a better job of using the KISS principle than the average office. Terrorists use simple stuff, like Moses' "Lamb Blood On The Door Frame Means Don't Kill This Family" method. And they use great money movement techniques. Sorry. Jay is right when he thinks restricting strong encryption won't do a bit of good. It's like restricting guns. Capt. Kirk made a cannon that shot diamond buckshot, all in one day, while being pursued by a lizard. I can make a bomb out of a pile of manure and a bag of flour. Heck, a heaping tablespoonful of powdered coffee creamer, slowly poured over a lighter from a height of two feet will give you a flame six feet high (DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME! I'M SERIOUS, IT WORKS. DO IT OUTSIDE AWAY FROM FLAMMABLES AND DON'T CATCH YOUR HAIR OR EYEBROWS ON FIRE!! I REFUSE TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR BURNING YOURSELF) Restricting guns did not stop our homegrown fools from mixing aircraft fuel and fertilizer and killing those innocents in Oklahoma, gun restrictions didn't stop the foreign murderers from using Bernoulli's principle as a tool of mass murder on 9/11, and the control of strong encryption techniques will not stop terrorists from sharing secrets and planning atrocities. I wish they could, but they can't. D. Weiss CCNA/MCSE/SSP2 -----Original Message----- From: Jay D. Dyson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 7:36 AM To: Davis, Don (CPOCEUR) Cc: ken; Security-Basics List; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: strong encryption - governments denying individuals the right to use -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 30 Apr 2002, Davis, Don (CPOCEUR) 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. Indeed. > 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. Yet there's absolutely no evidence to support even the mere suggestion that encryption enables the activities of terrorists. None. Saying that one should forego access to encryption in the interests of national security is like saying that one should walk around with a banana in one's ear to keep the alligators out of North Dakota. (Naturally, there will be those who will argue that the absence of alligators in North Dakota is proof that the banana-in-the-ear technique works...) - -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. iEYEARECAAYFAjzOLUcACgkQGI2IHblM+8FIZgCcDBWEm46gHkya4IySMUgAB2MZ GIUAnj+kxJ9EvGfuc5iNBSVqNKJW7cTw =HZTL -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
