Yes. I ussually get attacked when I talk like this. Let me buy you a beer. TimH > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Jacob Meuser > Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 11:24 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [EUG-LUG:2746] Re: US Congress already discussing bans on > strong crypto] > > > On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 10:20:41AM -0700, Tim Howe wrote: > > Wouldn't putting back doors into encryption schemes in the > US mean that > > we could only decrypt messages encrypted with our own crypts? It > > wouldn't help us decrypt anything done with encryption developed > > elseware. So basically they want to spy on Americans. I feel safer > > already.... > > Duh! It's very typical of lawmakers. A tragedy happens, someone > who wants to be popular (as in get reelected) says some garbage > which he doesn't fully understand to feed off the ignorance and > confusion of those he's trying to be popular with. In the end, > the people that are (supposedly) being protected lose liberties > and are less safe. > > I'm an online merchant. I deal with "stolen identity" crimes > on a regular basis. It costs me money. Without strong crypto, > it will only get worse. I know I'm not alone. I'm sure many > of you work for companies that rely on crypto. The internet > is much more than a communications device; it is a signifigant > part of the economy. > > Breaking crypto is not going to make it that much easier to > find terrorists. The thing is, most crypto acutally can be > deciphered. Sure it takes a lot of computation cycles, and > one can't simply "tap the internet to see who's talking about > about blowing something up." > > It's just a weak excuse for the lack of effort in intellegence > gathering. I mean, IPs tell a lot more about someone than what > they might write in an email. After all, IPs can be traced to > actual physical locations, as in people, as in the people who > should be under surveilence for what they have done, not for > what they have written. > > If the government really wants to read someone's emails, then > they should spend more on developing computers that are efficient > enough to do the task, as well as actually identifying the emails > they think may contain valuable information; not take away the > freedom and privacy of all it's citizens. > > Of course, the real irony is that the US has sold crypto > technology to MidEast countries that you and I cannot have here, > which leads to a whole other discussion, mostly historical, and > revolves around the Opium Wars many years ago, but like I said, > that's a whole other discussion. (But I'll give a hint ... > "wars" against contraband are both *popular* and *profitable*. > Now, who do those words appeal to, lawmakers perhaps?) > > -- > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >
