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

["chefren" <chefren@pi.net>]

On 13 Apr 00, at 13:22, Jon Lehman wrote:

> 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.

It's a trade-off if you want to use strong encryption 
government will need ways around it for law enforcement.

I think "ludicrous" is probably better used for those ways 
around. Bugs in your =own= communication equipment and 
private home.

..

>  > 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."

We have it almost up here in The Netherlands and I don't 
think it's hard to see why other countries will follow. 
(Please don't forget, lots of countries already do so 
without nicely writing things down in laws. My country is 
very honest, clear and open about this compared to other 
countries.)

> 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?

Simply because organized crime isn't acceptable.

> Why is the government allowed to operate under a
> completely different set of laws than it's citizens?? 

Thats pretty normal.

>  Government is allowed the use of encryption, and there are no ways for its
> people to check up on *their* practices.

Not true, at least for The Netherlands, of course I cannot 
personnaly follow what our prime minister Wim Kok is saying 
but there are enough checks and balances in our layered 
democracy to keep him in check. (Montesqieu...)

> 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 . . .

Yes, your understanding of modern democracies.

>  > 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.

Hm, I have read your text and disagree.

..

> 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. 

I think one of the major differences between me and the 
average guy in the street is that I think myself and 
question things myself.

> 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. 

American-macho insight.

..

> Why do you think of using encryption as hiding
> communications?  It's simply protecting your rights to
> privacy.  

SIMPLY said: yes.

But if you think about it as a whole you see goverment 
cannot accept the situation that evolves. They cannot 
accept organized crime and they will need more privacy-
breaking means for law enforcement.

Pretty ludicrous means if you would ask me.


> 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.

Tssss. You forget computers. It's all about the enormous 
increase of computing power that gives the problems. It's 
now simple to completely encrypt communication in a way 
that can be considered uncrackable for law enforcement.


> 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?


Because the high standards may not evolve in -absolute- 
standards. If that would happen, and it happens, there are 
far more privacy intrusive means necessary for law-
enforcement.

As far as I see it unacceptable means.

+++chefren




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