[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       security-basics
Subject:    R: strong encryption - governments denying individuals the right  to use
From:       "Valerio B." <support () selnet ! org>
Date:       2002-04-30 20:08:03
[Download RAW message or body]

----- Original Message -----
From: Larry Offley <lucullus@telus.net>
To: Davis, Don (CPOCEUR) <don-davis@us.army.mil>; Jay D. Dyson
<jdyson@treachery.net>
Cc: Security-Basics List <security-basics@securityfocus.com>;
<Trina_Nivison@bankwest.com.au>
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 9:36 PM
Subject: Re: strong encryption - governments denying individuals the right
to use


>   "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a
>    little temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty nor safety."
>        - Benjamin Franklin
>
> Fill me in on how taking encryption away from us will protect us from
them,
> as they will still have it. We have an example in your own words.
>
> From: Davis, Don
>


I agree totally.

Try to stop the wheel and invert the direction, because recurring to
governments, and laws, and technical solutions, doesn't stop people from
being bad or, in anyways, offensive.

But there is always an escape way : to support and stimulate development
of good human qualities , rather than fighting the bad ones, because
fighting is violence, no matter from where it comes, and violence creates
violence, while good human qualities create good human qualities.

val



> >Releasing strong encryption to the public would endanger this, as it
would
> instantly wind up in the hands of other
> >governments...  When PGP was released, it was done so from Germany, I
> think, to "get around" the problem,
> >and was immediately picked up all over the place.
>
> So basically taking away encryption from us ensures that it get
distributed
> elsewhere anyway?
>
> We need encryption. We need to protect our information. It's not even that
I
> want to hide my data from the government. It's more that I need to protect
> the data from our own employees, other Corporations all it takes is one
flaw
> in a OS (code red /nimda anyone) to make my data readable by the world if
I
> have no other means to protect myself. Trust only goes so far. Most
computer
> information theft comes from inside the corporation.
>
> Larry Offley
>
> PS Excuse any spelling I was in a hurry.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Davis, Don (CPOCEUR)" <don-davis@us.army.mil>
> To: "Jay D. Dyson" <jdyson@treachery.net>; "Davis, Don (CPOCEUR)"
> <don-davis@us.army.mil>
> Cc: "Security-Basics List" <security-basics@securityfocus.com>;
> <Trina_Nivison@bankwest.com.au>
> Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2002 11:22 PM
> Subject: RE: strong encryption - governments denying individuals the right
> to use
>
>
> > I believe the government's stance is not so much to deny the individual
> > strong encryption tools, but rather to prevent or retard it's
> dissemination
> > to foreign governments whose traffic, shall we say, we prefer to be
> > breakable.  In my opinion, that's the long and short of the "why."
> >
> > Does this cost us as individuals the right to use strong encryption?
> Sure.
> > Big deal.  It's part of what keeps us safe in the country we live in.
If
> > we'd spent a little bit more money on intelligence over the last 5
years,
> > Sept. 11th wouldn't have happened.  Just because we're not engaged
> actively
> > in a war at the moment doesn't mean that we don't have enemies.
> >
> > If not having 1024-bit encryption available to send my private
information
> > over the web is the part of the cost, I can live with that.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jay D. Dyson [mailto:jdyson@treachery.net]
> > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 7:51 AM
> > To: Davis, Don (CPOCEUR)
> > Cc: Security-Basics List; Trina_Nivison@bankwest.com.au
> > Subject: RE: strong encryption - governments denying individuals the
> > right to use
> >
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On Mon, 29 Apr 2002, Davis, Don (CPOCEUR) wrote:
> >
> > > I beg to differ; any stance is defensible.
> >
> > While we can't argue that opinion, but I would like to see your
> > counterpoints to the points which were enumerated in my original reply.
> >
> > That something may be defensible is a matter of debate which rests
> > upon the logic and fact utilized to buttress the defense.  If the logic
is
> > flawed and the facts are in error, then there is no actual defense and
the
> > original assertion on the matter being indefensible stands.
> >
> > - -Jay
> >
> >
  _______
> >   ))   ))   .--"There's always time for a good cup of coffee"--.
> >====<--.
> > C|~~|C|~~| (>------ Jay D. Dyson -- jdyson@treachery.net ------<) |    =
> |-'
> >  `--' `--'  `- O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous. - Voltaire -'
`------'
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (SunOS)
> > Comment: See http://www.treachery.net/~jdyson/ for current keys.
> >
> > iEYEARECAAYFAjzM3y4ACgkQGI2IHblM+8E0sQCfZq/uHzHidOrLlnhl6I+RxlcJ
> > EmgAn3dEY0I+jtPcn1IOQMAkk4MpIRcF
> > =Z8tc
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>




[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]