[Raven] Re: NL: Intelligence agency authorized to scan satellitecommunications

[Jon Lehman <lehman.119@osu.edu>]

I've been sitting back reading posts to this list for about a year now, but 
I've never really felt the need to post anything.  I used to find Chefren's 
comments humorous because of their absurdity, but his outrageous statements 
are really getting old.

I do give you credit Chefren, for going up against us "macho American's and 
our RFC bibles," but freedom is an inherent right to all people, not just 
Americans.  The problem is, most governments don't respect that right, and 
most people don't demand their rights to privacy.  Even Americans are 
struggling to maintain their rights to privacy and encryption . . . 
practically everyday it seems the government comes up with proposed laws 
that would harm our rights.

During Hitler's regime and many other fascist movements, the first action 
taken by the leaders was disarmament.  Guns were outlawed for ordinary 
citizens, the governments of those people said it would make things safer, 
would make life better.  I'm sure it sounded great at the time, but when 
their very government turned on them and started executing and persecuting 
them, they were helpless.  Their means of fighting back and protecting 
themselves had been taken away.  This is why the United States has a second 
amendment, I think Jefferson and his friends new what they were doing when 
it was drafted.

That was in the industrial age, we are now in the information 
age.  Encryption is our only method to protect ourselves, and protect our 
rights to free speech.  Without it, we too would become helpless to 
maintain our rights against government and police forces.  If encryption 
rights are taken away, then what??  Will freedom of speech be 
revoked?  Will personal liberties and freedoms be denied?  Denying 
individuals the right to encryption is just the first step, and I 
personally don't want to see what the end result would be.  Just as 
everyone has a right to privacy, everyone also has a right to strong 
encryption.

Your argument that people should not be allowed to encrypt *their own* 
information is ludicrous.  Encrypted information is only as strong as it's 
weakest link.  If you don't trust the party that is encrypting your 
communications (say your ISP), then how safe is your information?  Do you 
even know if it was encrypted to begin with?  No, of course not.  Your ISP 
doesn't care about your privacy, and they're not going to do a thorough job 
of securing your information.

 > I hope nobody was shocked by the article, that's inevitably
 > what you get if Encryption is free and law enforcement
 > needs means. It is a legalised electronic form of a
 > "razzia" and should be avoided as much as possible in a
 > decent society in my opinion.

What are you talking about here?  "That's inevitably what you get if 
Encryption is free and law enforcement needs means."  Wow, sounds like 
you've been reading too much of Machiavelli's The Prince.  Why should 
government or the police be allowed to act against citizens simply because 
they are trying to protect their rights and their information?  Why is the 
government allowed to operate under a completely different set of laws than 
it's citizens??  Government is allowed the use of encryption, and there are 
no ways for its people to check up on *their* practices.  We all know that 
most governments don't act within the confines of the law, so shouldn't 
citizens then be allowed to decrypt their information?  No, it doesn't work 
that way.  Citizens are being denied their rights, and governments are 
operating above the law.  Something isn't right here . . .

 > I know I'm extremely bad understood by most of you but
 > still think we need the following:

Actually, I understand everything you've said perfectly.  Your English is 
great.  It just seems to me that you're parroting back the propaganda 
that's been fed to you by your own government.  Chefren, you should 
question everything.  Your government is a selfish body, just as is every 
government.  All of it's actions serve its own best interest.  Keeping tabs 
on citizens allows them to abuse power and to stay in power.

 >The police shouldn't be allowed to enter homes for placing bugs
 > without proof that the suspected are using encryption to
 > hide their communication.

Why do you think of using encryption as hiding communications?  It's simply 
protecting your rights to privacy.  Would you want somebody listening in on 
all of your phone calls?  Reading all of your mail?  Of course not.  Why do 
you think of data communications as any different than the spoken or 
written word?  There is no difference, only the methods of 
transmittal.  All other forms of communication have high standards of 
privacy, so why shouldn't data communications over the Internet be held to 
those same standards?

 > p.s. There is still some time to reject that
 > everything but new pointless American-macho RFC...

Well, this isn't an RFC, I didn't even reference one, so have fun with it.


Take care everyone.

Jon Lehman

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