Reply From: Josh Rouleau <jrouleau@FH.RRPC.COM>
> Reply From: William T Wilson <fluffy@dunadan.com>
>
> > understand what the govt wants to do. What I don't understand is why
> > people think the Internet is a fundamentally different form of
> > communication medium than the telephone or mail.
> There are many reasons. First, the Internet is the first medium wherein
> strong encryption is readily available for use by anyone that wants to use
> it. While it would be possible to encrypt paper mail using the same
> techniques used for e-mail, it wouldn't be as convenient. :)
One very good point right after another and I wont argue it but i will
point out one very fundamental difference here. All forms of
Communication outside of the internet TV, Radio, Newspapers,
Magazines, etc... Are regulated by Governmental agencies such as the
FCC (others? FBI CIA NSA?) . The Internet for the most part being as
it is a Global communications network cannot be fully regulated and as
it is currently isn't (for the most part). Being that it is digital
transmission with no true physical form (outside an electronic pulse)
it cant be handled in the same way. Keeping that in mind with Strong
Encryption your message travelling on the internet is actually safer
than that travelling in the mail (etc.). Only Someone who REALLY wants
your data bad will try to get it electronically and that's if they
personally have enough know how how to or know someone with enough
know how who does.
> Second, the Internet is the first medium wherein it is very easy to read
> the contents of mail sent across it. When you send paper mail, only a
> relatively few postal workers see it, and they don't have much of a chance
> to inspect it. On the Internet, more or less anyone can read your mail if
> they try hard enough.
This is only true if you send your email without any encryption
what-so-ever (or just the built in in your mail program). Again the
point will boil down to if someone wants it bad enough and knows how
to get it there really isn't much you can do about it. The Ability to
strongly encrypt data transmissions at least gives you some(little?)
added relief and makes it more frustrating to the person who wanted
your data bad enough to begin with.
> Sixth, there is much doubt about the competency of the government to keep
> a key escrow system intact. Many (most?) people believe that they would
> bungle it.
MOST :)
> Finally, there is the philisophical and moral issue of whether the
> government has any right to snoop on private conversations at all, and if
> so, whether we should really be entrusting the police with the means to
> do it.
heck with the way things are going now if you had a private
priviledged conversation with your lawyer if you died their beginning
to say SO WHAT! or OH WELL TOUGH SH*T!
my RANT here will be brief but: With the little bit of privacy left
in the world and with the little bit of security I find my own little
corner of cyberspace is about as free, secure, and TAX FREE as i would
like. Strong Encryption is my right and the government has no right
to even have a say so on the last true free medium left for us in the
supposedly free United States and i take personal affront that they
would even want to regulate me. Haven't i been regulated enough? <G>
Joshua J Rouleau,CNA
JROULEAU@FH.RRPC.COM
-o-
Subscribe: mail majordomo@sekurity.org with "subscribe isn".
Today's ISN Sponsor: Repent Security Incorporated [www.repsec.com]
Received on Wed Jun 17 21:07:02 1998