RE: [Raven] And it ought to be remembered that there is...

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

On 13 Apr 00, at 13:48, Chris Savage wrote:

..

> >On 13 Apr 00, at 13:09, Chris Savage wrote:
> >
> >> So I think the invocation of Machiavelli is very appropriate.  His
> >> observations relate to the (potential) behavior of both 
> >> private citizens and those holding (or seeking) power.  
> >
> >Hm, I tried to use his words to describe why Raven and IETF 
> >failed to bring something new and more useful to this 
> >world...
> 
> Well, I guess I disagree with you there.

(I have no problem with that but I was the one that 
inserted the Machiavelli piece with a reason that was known 
by me.)



> What is "new" to the world is
> strong encryption widely available to the citizenry.  But the effect of
> strong encryption isn't new; instead, it puts things as between government
> and citizen back to the way things were in pre-modern-technological times,
> in a sense.  Pre-telephone, pre-microphones, pre-radio, when two people
> spoke to each other, with a few reasonable precautions, they could be
> reasonably confident that no one was listening in.  Telephones, etc. have
> created a situation where the reverse is true: most people *assume* they are
> not being listened to, but have no way of knowing.  With strong encryption,
> again, people can be reasonably certain that they aren't being "listened" to
> (I know I'm eliding conversation and text here, but you get my point).

I think so, agree with most of it but cannot figure out why 
you don't mention the distance and broadcast effects 
brought by new technology.

If criminals were just talking in ancient times law 
enforcement could for example =see= who they were and where 
they were and what time it was. Important things to 
reconstruct a crime and obtaining proof.

Those means are not "again" available with encryption.

> >I still wonder why it is so difficult to explain here that 
> >free use of strong encryption inevitably will bring us law 
> >enforcement virtually sitting on our desks and tables at 
> >home.
> 
> I disagree with this, too, at least the "inevitably" part.  Certainly the
> availability of strong encryption will create pressures on law enforcement
> to be more aggressive about other ways of learning what it needs to learn to
> do its job.  Some of those ways will be acceptable to people, others won't.
> The availability of strong encryption, combined with whatever law
> enforcement ends up being permitted to do in response to it, will in various
> indirect ways affect the nature and extent of various types of crime.  If
> people don't like the result, then they may change their net/collective
> response to the availability of strong encryption.  The law enforcement
> approaches, practical civil liberties, crime rates, and the availability of
> strong encryption are all part of a complex adaptive system called
> "society."  None of us really has a clue what will happen at all, much less
> "inevitably" happen.


You may search my mail archives and they will show you that 
years ago at least one of us had a clue about what would 
happen.

Free use of encryption inevitably lead to nasty bugs in our 
private lives and electronic equivalents of a razzia.

(Really not that difficult to foresee if you know something 
about wiretapping in decent democratic countries.)



And it is so simple to trade, let the communication 
providers encrypt and law enforcement has nothing more to 
look for in our houses as a few years ago.

+++chefren

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