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

["Caspar Bowden" <cb@fipr.org>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: chefren
...
> I still wonder why it is so difficult to explain here that
> free use of strong encryptions inevitably will bring us law
> enforcement virtually sitting on our desks and tables at
> home.

I realize this is all well-travelled ground, but I can't understand why
chefren thinks that bugging

*) an intrinsically local method
*) whose deployment will be limited by cost
*) and risk of discovery
*) and therefore what the public will put up with electorally

is worse than interception, which is

*) cheap
*) scalable on digital systems
*) automatically analysable (on data)
*) scalable whilst maintaining secrecy

Suspects can already be bugged in their homes, and in the UK this isn't
limited to organised crime. The suspects in the Stephen Lawrence case
(infamous racist murder) were videod in secret in their homes, and many
people regard this as completely justifiable.

I can see one scenario which would be worse than interception, and that is
if all/most hardware became knobbled (opcodes with side-effects on
processors running encrypted machine code). It may be a struggle to stop
that happening.

--
Caspar Bowden               Tel: +44(0)20 7354 2333
Director, Foundation for Information Policy Research
RIP Information Centre at:    www.fipr.org/rip#media




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