Removal of sensitive information, locking down of websites, securing otherwise accessible points of data. The .gov and .mil talk of cyber-homeland-defense-strategy blah doesn't make much sense, at least not from the admittedly media-derived POV I get. In amongst the proposals for screening people, ratting out neighbours, the whole shebang, the only active preventative measures I can see being taken are more laws, and more forces to enforce them. Sure, I've heard the talk that government agencies should examine the data available to the public, and then hide it all, but there's a distinct lack of serious consideration with regards to secure communications attached to the same systems.
The view I get fed all the time is that crypto is, on the whole, in the hands of the terrorists, the anti-patriots, the paedophiles, et al. That it is a bad thing. People using it should surrender keys to the government, if you're encrypting mails then you should be viewed as having something to hide... Interfaces and usability aside, there's an air that only the "wrong" need ciphers. History as we see it backs this up to an extent, in the fact that secrets are presented as something in the hands of the enemy to be broken as a tool of war. Unbroken ciphers as a home tool don't seem to generate much interest. The fact of the matter is that most people don't have anything to hide, and so even if the interface was the most intuitive ever, they probably still wouldn't use it. Extra step, and all that. But it just seems stange to me that the government in all their paranoia haven't announced nationwide plans to start encrypting all government communications, to implement federal-, nay industrial-spanning secure infrastructures. In my proletarianism, maybe I'm just blind to it. Have people in sensitive positions of power actually seen an increase in taking this seriously? Is it already in such a state? The security of simple things such as .mil webpages and IP'd resources certainly doesn't convince. Or are they really not bothered, and just want to make a good headline? Further, if such a scheme were announced, could this conceivably introduce cryptotech as part of a mainstream process? Necessity is the mother of invention, and in such times, necessity is what people say it is and sell it as. As a safeguard against nations' security and/or economy, should we look to paranoid industries as the first step towards a secure, anonymous society? Hum, just me thinking aloud anyway. Apologies if this is in the archives.. crypto + govenment throws up a few results...
