RE: [Raven] [FYI] NL: Intelligence agency authorized to scan satellite communications

["Lyal Collins" <lyalc@ozemail.com.au>]

Au contraire, IMHO.
Problem not solved, 'victims' are even more defenceless.

lyal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: raven-admin@ietf.org [mailto:raven-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Ed
> Stone
> Sent: Thursday, 13 April 2000 7:18
> To: raven@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Raven] [FYI] NL: Intelligence agency authorized to scan
> satellite communications
> 
> 
> 
> >All far too difficult and tricky. If encryption is
> >regulated for end-users and provided by communication
> >providers because law demands it, law enforcement can ask
> >communication providers to decode messages and there are no
> >further problems. Unless an end user do uses encryption, in
> >that case law enforcement should be able to place bugs in
> >homes.
> 
> Why not require bugs to be attached to the person? Crime could hide in 
> places other than the home if only homes are bugged?  ;-)
> 
> What if you *might* be using encryption, but steganography might 
> hide that 
> fact. Couldn't crime hide there?  ;-)
> 
> Oh, for a world where more power to governments to intrude meant less 
> crime, instead of more crime. "Chefren's world..."
> 
> The Chefren model is bankrupt. Only pretense is left, and the 
> plug is being 
> pulled on this list, problem solved, philosophy stated.
> --
> --------------------------
> Ed Stone
> estone@synernet.com
> --------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> raven mailing list
> raven@ietf.org
> http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/raven
> 

_______________________________________________
raven mailing list
raven@ietf.org
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/raven