A) It is Tzav Hatzofen (it is a Tzav which Minsiter of Diffence (Sar Habitachun) is authorized to change. B) It was changed several yearsr ago, and you can use encryption as much as you like (I think up to 128-bit secret key). Exporting is also easier with less restrictions. C) No one ever was prosecuted becuase he/she encrypted material (AFAIK). D) This system admin. can now restart the encryption in SSH, all cipher included in OpenSSH and SSH are ok but Tzav Hatzofen (AFAIK).
Disclaimer: I'm a cryptographer, not a lawyer. On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Nadav Har'El wrote: > On Mon, Sep 09, 2002, Tzafrir Cohen wrote about "[OT] proposed israeli laws >regarding internet and encryption": > > 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 > >... > > Anybody else senses here a cheap use of the terror (in greek: fear) > > threat? > > Years ago, American legislators were worried about "criminals" (see for > example the Clipper Chip fiasco) and used that as an excuse [1] to harras > and limit the freedoms of law-abiding citizens. Now they can brand their > anti-freedom laws as patriotic, because they are against "terrorists". > > > And what about technologies that are already available to the public (e.g: > > the american legislation regarding open-source (?) encryption > > technologies)? > > Note that there's a difference between allowing export or importing some > encryption technology, and allowing actually using it. If you somehow manage > to get yourself a gun, does that mean you're allowed to use it? Of course > not! Similarly the fact that some encryption software is easily obtainable > (as open source, Internet Explorer, encryption hardwer, or whatever) does > not mean that it can be legally used in Israel. > > Last time I checked, Israel has some sort of law called "chok hatsofen", > that limits not only the export of encryption software (like the American > ITAR or EAR), but also the actual use of encryption. If I remember correctly > it forbids *any* sort of encryption, unless otherwise exempted in the law, > with exemptions given to very-low-grade encryption and to specific software > (e.g., I think Internet Explorer and Netscape were listed). > > This "chok hatsofen" actually affects (or at least affected, I don't know > if it has changed since) Israeli citizens, unfortunately. A few years ago, > a system administrator I know disabled one of the encryption algorithms in > SSH on his system (a system used by hundreds of users) because he found it > was technically illegal in Israel. > > > [1] Off-topic footnote: > The United States constitution has gone to great lengths to protect > citizens from being harrassed by the government's law-enforcement > agencies. From their experience with British soldiers, the founding > fathers knew that "absolute power corrupts absolutely", i.e., given > absolute power over the citizens these agencies will start applying it > arbitrarily for less-than-kosher purposes. > These citizens' rights were written in the Bill of Rights, the first > 10 amendments to the US constitution. The first amendment gave the > citizens the rights of free speech and free assembly. The second > amendment allowed citizens to carry guns (this amendment is still very > controversial). The third amendment prevented the military from taking > over your house. The fourth amendment prevented the police from > searching your property without probably cause and a warrent. The rest > of the bill of rights deals with the criminal prosecution process and > punishment. > Therefore in the US, it has been almost a "religion" that the police > (or FBI, DEA, ATF, or whatever) should not have absolute power to track > citizens, even given the dangers of "crime". But the conviction in these > truths have dangerously deteriorated in the last decades, until now they > found the perfect ruse to destroy the constitution: terrorism. > > -- Orr Dunkelman, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Computers make it easy to do a lot of things, but most of the things they make it easier to do, don't need to be done. --Andy Rooney Spammers: http://vipe.technion.ac.il/~orrd/spam.html ================================================================= 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]
