> One note: people there seem to be quite clueless regarding the > distribution of encryption technologies: > > The legitlators accept the position of the Security Forces according to > which "limiting the use of encryption and limiting the distribution of > sophisticated security systems will help the defense organizations to > intercept messages containing information that can lead to to the > circumvention of terrorist acts. On the other hand, giving encryption > technologies to terrorists will increase the number of casualties in > crimes that can't be prevented. > > Anybody else senses here a cheap use of the terror (in greek: fear) > threat?
you only quoted half a paragraph.the first half sets a different meaning and tone: "we thought that all supervision on encryption should be cancelled, since it's obvious that a terrorist who want to deal with encryption won't ask for a license, where as legitimate companies encounter bureaucratic difficulties". all in all, i think most of what these guys want is pretty much ok: 1. limited responsibility of ISPs and sites to what people post on websites (needless to say, this will help me sleep better). 2. no supervision over encryption technologies. 3. clearing the subject of a state "back door" by law (which pretty much means no more of this rubbish, if it does exist) Dvir Volk Editor in Chief Nana by NetVision _________________________________________________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Tel: 03-5652585 | Fax:03-6241952 | http://www.netvision.net.il http://www.nana.co.il NetVision LTD. Omega Center, Matam Haifa 31905 ================================================================To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
