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

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

On 14 Apr 00, at 10:19, janne.haikonen@nokia.com wrote:

> > You ar NOT talking about =me=, I'm for strong encryption 
> > with quality control and laws that demand it for 
> > communication providers.  
> 
>  - Why should I (or anyone, or any company) trust my 
> sensitive data to the hands of my ISP?

Because you don't want law enforcement planting bugs in 
your computers.

(Please don't forget that it also can also happen if you 
communicate with a party that is highly criminal and you 
are definitely not.)

Besides, we used unencrypted telephone wires for 150 
years...

> What if, say, one
> works in a company that have sites around the World and 
> needs to share information (e.g. in form of encrypted 
> e-mails) within these sites. Should the company trust all
> ISPs in all countries it has sites?

Look for a communication provider that can supply a good 
encrypted virtual private network.

> Also those in countries 
> like, say, Iraq/N.Korea etc.? What about the human rights 
> activists in those countries? Should they trust their ISPs
> (that can be government owned/controlled) too? 

These are all war-like situations. I have always spoken 
about =regulated= encryption. Goverments can give licenses 
to people who have these specific needs.

>  - What if I'm sending sensitive information within a LAN?
> (I.e., there's no ISP between sender and receiver). Without
> end-to-end encryption everyone with access (at least) to that 
> segment and bit of knowledge could read my data at will... 
> 
>  Just my own views... 

Also -just your- demands, I agree they are reasonable 
demands from your point of view. Our whole problem as a 
society is that these individual demand collide with law 
enforcement.

I hope I may presume you have demands concerning law 
enforcement too...

+++chefren







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