[free-sklyarov] Encryption position paper

[proclus at iname.com]

On 14 Sep, Martin Baker wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> 
>> on Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 01:14:00PM -0400, proclus at iname.com (proclus at iname.com) wrote:
> 
>> > I'm working on a position paper on encryption today.
>> > 
>> > http://gnu-darwin.sourceforge.net/war.html
>> > 
>> > All suggestions welcome.
>> 
>> Well considered.
>> 
>> Worth its own discussion thread IMO.
> 
> I had a problem with the last paragraph, about how governments might get
> warrants and demand private keys, etc. This has happened in the UK, with
> the RIP (Regulation of Investigative Powers - which, of course,
> increases police power) bill. If the government asks, you must turn over
> private keys, and you may not tell anyone. If you tell anyone, you can be
> jailed. This would happen even if you, as an employee of a company, told
> your superiors that you had been forced to turn over company keys to the
> police. I don't think we need any legislation like that, thank you very
> much.
> 

Thanks for the input!  Yes, that last part was a tough decision.  You
will note that I would required a warrant to be issued in order for the
agents to demand your encryption keys.  It can't be arbitrary that way,
and I think that there are many good analogies to conventional warrants
to be made there.

I specifically did not mention Britain's law, because from my
impressions of it, it might be quite an overstep from the US point of
view.  

Finally, I think that it is a reasonable concession that would give the
national security hawks in congress something to crow about. ;-}



> I also think the argument can be made without reference to a "war" which
> has not been declared against an enemy which has not been named. Accepting
> the government's argument that "national security" is paramount is going
> to be used against you.

I'm taking the state of war as an assumption, as is the congress.  As I
have been saying, we must tailor our arguments to the situation at
hand.  Encryption is a great example here of how American-style freedom
often coincides with true national security interests.  

This is why I brought up the proprietary encryption vendors and web
commerce, because it appears to me that they have too much to gain from
the monolithic model, which is clearly contrary to freedom and to
national security in the long run.

Regards,
proclus
http://www.gnu-darwin.org/


> 
> Peace,
> Martin
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> free-sklyarov mailing list
> free-sklyarov at zork.net
> http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov

-- 
Visit proclus realm! http://www.proclus-realm.com/
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GMU/S d+@ s: a+ C++++ UBULI++++$ P+ L+++(++++) E--- W++ N- !o K- w--- !O
M++@ V-- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP-- t+++(+) 5+++ X+ R tv-(--)@ b !DI D- G e++++
h--- r+++ y++++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://frotz.zork.net/pipermail/free-sklyarov/attachments/20010914/d7ba79e4/attachment.pgp