[FYI] Did Encryption Empower These Terrorists?

[Mikael Johansson]

> Therefore cryptography is treated differently by political
> logic.
>
> [Moderator's note: Everyone who's got a copy of Netscape or IE has
> cryptographic software in their hands, and most of them have used
it. --Perry]
>
> And, beyond that, we have to keep in mind a certain detail:
>
> Air planes, telephones, hotel rooms, rental cars are "civil"
> equipment. In contrast to that, cryptography is a
> "martial art". It's history shows that it has been used for
> military purposes for centuries, but far less than a century for
> private purposes.

But I think that this is exactly what must be pointed out when entering a
debate on these issues. Yes, cryptography has been used widely in a military
context, and yes, it is still very much used in that context *BUT* the main
area where its civil uses are visible is exactly in Netscape/IE -- and in
particular when dealing with money. Online banking, online purchase etc.
etc. It wouldn't be widespread if the companies involved wouldn't go with
it. The companies involved have gone in to it at a high rate until at least
somewhat secure communications could be established (at least not
non-snake-oil companies); and for secure communications -- i.e. "Can I trust
that no-body steals my credit card?" -- is ensured by cryptography.

The next step in the debate is as I view it to point out that a key escrow
solution -- which probably would appear quickly at this stage -- is
 a) unlikely to be adopted by criminals -- how many actually expect fanatic
terrorist to _upgrade_ to a version _publicly_ acknowledged to contain
CIA/FBI/NSA/WHOEVER backdoors?
 b) not likely to avoid attacks by people trying to crack the scheme; and
once that succeeded, potentially even less secure than plaintext...

> Hadmut

// Mikael Johansson




---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at wasabisystems.com