[387] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Dorothy and the four Horseman
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael C Taylor)
Wed Mar 19 10:42:59 1997
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 11:27:20 -0400 (AST)
From: Michael C Taylor <mctaylor@mta.ca>
Reply-To: Michael C Taylor <mctaylor@mta.ca>
To: cryptography@c2.net
In-Reply-To: <199703182209.OAA23941@gabber.c2.net>
On Tue, 18 Mar 1997, sameer wrote:
> I think it would be wise for folks on "our side" to reply to
> this request, saying how cryptography is an essential tool for
> fighting organized crime, terrorists, etc.
> (She sent it to infowar@infowar.com, which is a public list,
> not just for law enforcement-types, right? [I consider myself a
> law-and-order type anyway =])
Unless Dr. Denning has been brainwashed recently, she is quite aware of
the 'crypto-anarchist' and cypherpunk's feelings on GAK. See RISKS Vol 18
No 90 <http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/18.90.html#subj6> for her own words
on that matter. Personal privacy has been pointed out to her several times
before in public forum (see RISKS, Wired Magazine's Brain Tennis, and
reflections in Denning's own papers).
Denning is looking for evidence to support the claim that encryption
affects law enforcement. I do not think she will find a large number of
cases.
First of all, if you throw out all the speculation (good research for
factual data), then you have no idea how much valuable evidence was
actually protected by strong cryptography since they cannot decipher it to
validate any claim that it was in fact incriminating. If LEA could defeat
it, it would not adversely affect an investigation. If LEA could prove
that encrypted evidence was incriminating without deciphering it, the LEA
had enough other evidence to demostrate criminal activity without worrying
about what was enciphered with strong cryptography.
Looking at all the speculation, you see how many people were suspected,
but either encrypted enough of their lives to hide their criminal actions,
or did not in fact break the law. Last time I thought about it, most
people were considered law-adiding citizens, so the majority of the
people suspected, one could persume were innocent.
Since the percentage of the population who use strong cryptography enough
to thwart LEAs is tiny, why worry? I speculate it is less than 100
people in US. How many people do you know, use strong encryption for the
vast majority of their communications and activities?
Rant provided by Michael Taylor. Maybe.
--
Michael C. Taylor <mctaylor@mta.ca> <http://www.mta.ca/~mctaylor/>
Programmer, Mount Allison University, Canada
