> From: "Patrick R. Wade" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 10:40:58 -0700
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [EUG-LUG:2743] Re: [[EMAIL PROTECTED]: US Congress already discussing
> bans on strong crypto]
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 09:49:13AM -0700, Dennis J. Eberl wrote:
>>
>> I did. Back doors are a good idea. We need strict laws to cover there use.
>> fsck that, Jacob.
>>
>
> Over and above the civil rights issues, back doors are a technical idiocy.
> Any encryption that comes pre-equipped with vulnerabilities will be cracked
> by the "unauthorized" in short order, and will be as generally useful as
> ROT13.
Ok.
> Moreover, it's rather late to stuff the genie back in the bottle; when
> effective
> crypto is outlawed, the outlaws will continue to use effective crypto.
Absolutely. How quickly do you think the export prohibition on 128-bit
encryption was violated.
> Also, since you've apparently got "nothing to hide", would you mind posting
> your credit card numbers, ATM PINs, account passwords, and teenage daughter's
> phone number to the list?
What do you think, fool. What I object to is Big Brother phobia that keeps
you and those like you from even beginning to address what is a serious
problem.
If you are so smart, how do you suggest we protect ourselves in the area of
digital (including RF) communication? For example, given the encryption in
place securing financial transactions, how would you go about finding Osama
bin Laden's cash stash? How would you decrypt his telecommunications? How
would you even begin to pull your fat head out of you smug little ass?
Dennis Eberl
> --
> UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this
> IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED, ESPECIALLY to COMPUTER
> BULLETIN BOARDS.
>
>
