NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/sci/crypt/4986

Text File | 1992-11-18 | 3.5 KB | 73 lines

Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!sgiblab!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!malgudi.oar.net!news.ans.net!newsgate.watson.ibm.com!yktnews!admin!wo0z!lwloen
From: [e-mail] (Larry Loen)
Subject: Re: Cryptology and criminals
Sender: [e-mail]
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 19:27:30 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: wo0z.rchland.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Rochester
Lines: 58

In article <[e-mail]> LineNoise
writes:

>Why must things be taken to extremes?  Technology that is primarily used to
>bring harm to people or avoid law enforcement agencies should be limited in
>their distribution and monitored closely.  We don't want offensive nuclear
>capability to spread to unstable nations or handguns to be given to people
>with a history of violent crime(s) or mental instability.  On the other hand
>we want to keep the right to bear arms and use them in self defense and promote
>the use of nuclear technology when it comes to non-destructive purposes. The
>same holds with cryptography-- limit it so that the abuse by criminals and
>other hostile bodies will have the capability to misuse it.  Allow only those
>encryption methods defeatable by the law enforcement agencies to distributed
>and outlaw the distribution of more powerful methods.  And enforce laws that
>will help protect the common man's privacy from those who have no business in
>decrypting his data.

Nice try.  But, you are assuming a lot of things are known that are
not known.

For instance, your statement implies the following:

We can all unequivocally agree on whom the criminals are.

We never enact laws that outlaw behavior that, in retrospect, are actually
found to be harmless.

We can be assured that the cops never, ever, never abuse their power.  No
individual, citizen, politician, whatever, will absue their power to
reveal private thoughts to the press, prosecutors, political enemies, or
anyone else who wishes harm to private citizens choosing to encrypt.

We never socially ostracise anyone for holding a legal opinion that the
majority or a powerful elite does not like.

We can prevent criminals, political opponents, people who wish us ill will
from acquiring the means to defeat the crypto-systems the cops know how
to beat.

And, probably many others.

Consider "LineNoise" him or herself.  Perhaps it is an artifact of the
account used that there is no real name given.  But, suppose instead that
he (I'll guess and say "he") is an employee of Temple University and holds
a part time job.  Suppose further the employer is a little Neanderthal and
has instructed that no one access Internet under pain of firing.  Suppose
someone is able to analyze the posting and publishes LineNoises identity.
The boss sees it and fires LineNoise.  Yet, LineNoise does not think peeking
at Internet, in an ideal world, is a firing offense and actually LineNoise
carefully works unlogged overtime to make up for it, so no real harm is done.

Is LineNoise so sure about the "compromise" in the posting?  Admittedly, my
example is probably incorrect, but I do find it interesting that compromise
is suggested by an anonymous poster whose name is "logically" encrypted!

--
   Larry W. Loen        |  My Opinions are decidedly my own, so please
                        |  do not attribute them to my employer