Perhaps as well, they do wish to monitor as much high encryption traffic as they are able to detect, and wish to keep the signal to noise ratio down as long as they can, until they are using 2048 or better themselves... So, in the spirit of "good citizenry", we opt NOT to use the strongest, so that the traffic they do manage to intercept can be more easily managed...
-----Original Message----- From: Williams, Larry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 2:36 PM To: 'ken'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: strong encryption - governments denying individuals the rightto use -----Original Message----- From: ken >+++ Davis, Don (CPOCEUR) [29/04/02 08:22 +0200]: >> If not having 1024-bit encryption available to send my private information >> over the web is the part of the cost, I can live with that. >Can you live without the locks on your house / car / safe? I doubt it, but you missed the point. He's not talking about removing the locks altogether but that he can live without a cipher lock. Certainly we all want to protect our personal information as much as our personal property. And because there are bad guys out there who will use whatever tools are at their disposal to obtain anything of value from us, a certain degree of protection is needed both in the physical and online worlds. If government says I can have 256-bit or 512-bit crypto technology, but I can't have the latest 1024-bit blowhard crypto, maybe it's because they use that to ensure national security or protect military secrets. Is it wise that everyone know how to decipher a secure military communication? I wouldn't think so, and to protect that code, they must prevent everyone from having it until they find something better.
