From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Mon Apr 29 2002 - 15:15:53 MDT
Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>
> On Monday, April 29, 2002, at 05:38 am, KPJ wrote:
>
>> |Furthermore, this 'tapping' only works for networks which are unsecure,
>> |and for unencrypted packets on the worldwide network.
>
>
> No. Weak encryption is easily decrypted by large government computers.
> Strong encryption is illegal to export, and so further investigation is
> warranted because of a possible export crime.
The algorithms are not illegal to export. If everyone has the
algorithms and anyone with a bit of programming skill can
implement it then the export restrictions are meaningless and do
little but weaken American products and e-commerce.
> Strong encryption coming
> into the US that was not originally funded from US sources merits
> further investigation for possible terrorist connections or activity by
> foreign governments. I can't think of any type of traffic that is
> excluded from these systems.
Either you believe in the right to encrypt or you don't. Using
one or more of the "four horsemen" to justify lack of freedom
and privacy is not, imho, supportive of either.
I would much rather have terrorists, child pornographers, drug
lords and assorted evil persons able to also dependably encrypt
their own communications along with everyone else rather than
prohibit everyone from such means. The latter would not even
seriously slow down the true bad guys anyway.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:42 MST