Hello, Jacob.
> From: Jacob Meuser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 11:23:54 -0700
> 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 find much good in what you say below so don't hit the roof when I tell you
the analysis above strikes me as unduly cynical and is the kind of rhetoric
that keeps us from addressing a serious problem.
> 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.
I agree _completely_ with what you said above.
> 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."
I agree that wholesale e-mail reading is nonsense and that we should develop
the technology to do decryption more rapidly. I think that would be a
rational thing to do and could be used effectively when used very
selectively. By comparison, screwing around with encryption is downright
stupid.
He why don't we all give our government some of our machine cycles. Man, I'd
love to hear the reasoning against that idea.
> It's just a weak excuse for the lack of effort in intellegence
> gathering.
By whom? Senators who barely know how to turn on their computers. Surely you
can't mean that members of the intelligence community are lazy and are
floating these ideas so they won't have to get to work.
> I mean, IPs tell a lot more about someone than what
> they might write in an email.
You mean IP addresses, right?
> 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.
Well, gosh, if you were assigned to protect the President and you got the IP
of someone who _wrote_ an e-mail threatening the President's life, would you
sit around until that someone actually tried to off the Pres? Stay in the
computer world. You are not suited for intelligence work.
> 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.
You think "the government" really gives a rats ascii about reading the tripe
on euglug.org? Give me a beak!
> Of course, the real irony is that the US has sold crypto
> technology to MidEast countries that you and I cannot have here,
Can you give me a citation supporting this assertion? Thank you. Sad if
true.
> 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?)
<snip>
Jacob, you are just being silly now. Get a grip.
Dennis Eberl
