Fw: [ISN] Aust Defence wont disclose stance on encryption

[Jason]

----- Original Message -----
From: "InfoSec News" <isn at c4i.org>
To: <isn at attrition.org>
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2001 8:38 AM
Subject: [ISN] Aust Defence wont disclose stance on encryption


>
http://www.zdnet.com.au/newstech/security/story/0,2000024985,20260593,00.htm
?chkpt=zdnn_nbs_h
>
> By Rachel Lebihan,
> ZDNet Australia
> 20 September 2001
>
> Australias Department of Defence wont disclose if it will answer the
> US governments call to arms in restricting encryption technologies,
> and despite widespread support in the States for a ban on
> cryptography, experts say its unlikely to happen.
>
> ZDNet previously reported that the question of restricting the use of
> encryption tools is a matter of serious debate in the US, where
> officials have been quick to blame the use of cryptography for the
> surveillance breakdown that failed to detect signs of the recent
> US-focused terrorist attacks.
>
> The US has called for international support in its encryption
> crackdown but Australian government departments have been quick to
> pass the buck or keep their mouths shut as to whether or not the
> country will rally to support its US counterpart.
>
> Minister for communications Senator Richard Alstons office didnt
> return phone calls to ZDNet Australia and the Attorney Generals
> department referred the matter to the Department of Defence, which
> said: It goes into the realms of defence and we dont comment on that.
>
> According to reports from the US, there is widespread support for a
> ban on "uncrackable" encryption products, with 72 percent of Americans
> agreeing that anti-encryption laws would be "somewhat" or "very"
> helpful in preventing a repeat of the September 11 terrorist attacks.
>
> However, according to Laura Chappell of US-based Protocol Analysis
> Institute, a ban is unlikely to happen. Although over-the-counter
> decryption tools are readily available over the Internet we use the
> same tools for troubleshooting on our own networksto not allow vendors
> to distribute them is impossible, she told ZDNet Australia.
>
> The encryption issue is a double-edged sword...in the US we want to
> vote electronically so encryption must be tremendously advanced and
> secure. Alternately, we don't want the terrorists to have encryption
> better than our government, she said.
>
> Chappell believes that although a ban on cryptography wont happen,
> those who write encryption technology will probably cooperate more
> with the government to help them detect when terrorist communication
> is going occurring.
>
> This is the first time ISPs have really cooperatedthe government
> usually has to bend over backwards until its nose bleeds to get even a
> little cooperation, Chappell said.
>
> According to Grant Bayley, founder of 2600 Australia (
> www.2600.org.au/), a hub of information on computer security, if there
> are serious moves in the United States to crack down on encryption,
> the Australian Government will surely following suit.
>
> However, such a privacy-restrictive move isn't likely to be a quick
> one, given that additional laws would need to be created, debated,
> presumably senate-examined and passed, according to Bayley. A sudden
> backflip on privacy enhancements to a position of restricting
> cryptography and allowing much greater government surveillance of
> citizens isn't likely to go down well with an election looming, Bayley
> added.
>
> Bayley said it wouldnt surprise him if developers were asked by the
> government for decryption assistance, however, In my opinion, there's
> more problems associated with putting the genie back in the bottle
> than there have been with letting the genie out.
>
> I think the non-technical pollies in Washington are looking for every
> reason to avoid pointing the finger at the reduced human capabilities
> of their surveillance and intelligence organisations, he said.
>
> Alex Shiels, who runs a Web site relating to cryptography, censorship
> and free speech, agrees that no Western government is likely to outlaw
> cryptography because it's essential to the finance and e-commerce
> industry.
>
> What we might see though is mandatory key escrow, where users are
> required to lodge their decryption keys with a government agency, to
> be made accessible to law enforcement when a warrant is granted,
> Shiels said, bringing into the debate the fact that corrupt or
> incompetent escrow agency officials could release keys to the wrong
> person.
>
> US corporations are bracing themselves for cyberterrorism attacks.
> Australia needs to do the same. Encryption forms a critical part of
> online security and internet defences. Any government moves to limit
> the use of encryption, including key escrow schemes, will weaken those
> defences, Shiels said.
>
> At the end of the day, Chappell believes that corporate America will
> win out.
>
> Corporate America is not going to break down the walls and allow a
> government state.
>
> What happens in Australia remains to be seen.
>
>
>
> -
> ISN is currently hosted by Attrition.org
>
> To unsubscribe email majordomo at attrition.org with 'unsubscribe isn' in the
BODY
> of the mail.




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