uhh... when you guys go have that beer, can I come along? id like to hear more (and maybe have a beer!) Jamie >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]> >> ------------------- -
