BBC article on encryption

[Rigo Wenning <wenning2@rz.uni-sb.de>]

Sieht so aus, als hätten wir den nächsten 
encryption - hype vor uns. Kanther & Co 
haben Wahlkampf. 
Was läuft dazu eigentlich in Deutschland? 
Der Wirtschaftsminister sagt, wir brauchen Krypto 
und der Innenminister vereinbart derweil ein Verbot 
in der EU?

Was sagen die gewöhnlich gut informierten Kreise?

Rigo


>Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 15:57:41 GMT0BST
>From: "Yaman Akdeniz" <lawya@lucs-01.novell.leeds.ac.uk>
>Subject: BBC article on encryption
>To: gilc-plan@privacy.org
>Reply-To: gilc-plan@gilc.org
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_51000/51997.stm
>
>The key debate on encryption
>
>              The debate on computer crime is raging
>
>              European Union Justice and Home Affairs ministers have
>              been holding a two-day conference in Birmingham to
>              discuss co-operation to combat cyber-crimes. The Home
>              Secretary, Jack Straw, is using Britain's six-month EU
>              presidency to raise awareness of the task facing law
>              enforcement agencies on the Internet. The ministers
>              agreed on Thursday that such agencies must have access
>              to the codes used to scramble information. They warned
>              that unbreakable encryption systems would mean organised
>              crime could pursue its activities unhindered. While
>              there are arguments for police gaining the keys to codes
>              to clamp down on activities such as paedophile rings,
>              there are equally concerns about infringement of civil
>              liberties and privacy. Andrew Orlowski of PC Pro
>              magazine writes for News Online on the great encryption
>              debate: 
>
>              Turning plain English into scrambled computer code may
>              be a process known only to a select few but, from
>              propeller-headed boffins to Newbies, almost everyone on
>              the Internet seems to have an opinion on encryption. 
>
>              The temperature of the debate has been raised by the
>              interest now being shown by big business in using the
>              Net and tapping its community of affluent professionals.
>              
>
>              Major cost savings have been pinpointed: research by a
>              High Street bank recently costed the overhead of an
>              Internet transaction at 13p, compared to more than a
>              pound for an over-the-counter transaction. 
>
>              Even more important is the use of the Net for
>              business-to-business transactions, which Netscape dubs
>              the 'Extranet', but is a re-invention of a much older
>              computer industry niche called EDI (Electronic Data
>              Interchange). Research firm IDC predicts that this
>              business will account for 90 per cent of Internet
>              transactions by 2001. And here companies have a problem.
>              
>
>              Traditionally EDI took place over secure private
>              networks, rather than the Internet. Unlike these
>              networks, the Internet was designed for reliability, not
>              security, which presents a couple of practical
>              difficulties. 
>
>              To trade over the Net, a business needs to be convinced
>              that the other party is exactly who they say they are,
>              and also that at the many way-stations through which an
>              electronic messages may pass, no prying eyes can read
>              its contents. This is where encryption comes in. 
>
>              The most popular solution in use today is public key
>              encryption, one of a number of types of 'strong
>              encryption', so called because of the immense difficulty
>              it takes to unscramble the code by brute force. 
>
>              Each participant uses two keys - small codes which have
>              been generated from a private pass phrase - one of which
>              is lodged with a third party. This is the public
>              portion, and since it permits access to the
>              communication, must be mutually acceptable to both
>              parties. 
>
>              But the question of who should be the 'Trusted Third
>              Party' (TPT) is one of the most heated areas of debate. 
>
>              Naturally, governments are alarmed at criminals using
>              encoded communications and have sought to restrict
>              strong encryption, either by outlawing its use entirely
>              or by licensing trusted third parties. 
>
>              According to lawyer Alistair Kelman, the bodies
>              suggested for TPT status - our banks, lawyers and
>              accountants - fail to hold the public's trust. He
>              suggests General Practitioners instead. 
>
>              To complicate matters further, the United States has
>              traditionally classified encryption as a 'munition', and
>              restricted its export. 
>
>              For Simon Davies, director general of Privacy
>              International, the cure is worse than the illness. In
>              his years of campaigning, he says, "not one law
>              enforcement agency worldwide has produced a substantive,
>              quantified argument for controlling encryption." He
>              fears "an unworkable system used by a minority of
>              'law-abiding' people." 
>
>              Davies cites preserving our identity as another defence
>              for allowing strong encryption. In the Middle Ages, when
>              much of the population was illiterate, a person owned
>              their identity...their face. Today, with commercial
>              organizations trading personal information about our
>              incomes and lifestyles, gleaned from a variety of
>              databases and from supermarket 'loyalty' cards, our
>              identity is literally what we consume: a prospect Davies
>              finds alarming. 
>
>              In principle at least, the EU, committed to 'the free
>              movement of encryption technologies and products',
>              appears to agree. 
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Yaman Akdeniz <lawya@leeds.ac.uk>
>Cyber-Rights & Cyber-Liberties (UK) at:
>http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/pgs/yaman/yaman.htm
>
>Read CR&CL (UK) Report, 'Who Watches the Watchmen'
>http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/pgs/yaman/watchmen.htm
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>