[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
BBC article on encryption
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: BBC article on encryption
- From: Rigo Wenning <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 16:40:09 +0100
- Comment: This message comes from the debate mailing list.
- Sender: email@example.com
Sieht so aus, als hätten wir den nächsten
encryption - hype vor uns. Kanther & Co
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?
>Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 15:57:41 GMT0BST
>From: "Yaman Akdeniz" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Subject: BBC article on encryption
>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
> 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
> 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
> 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 <email@example.com>
>Cyber-Rights & Cyber-Liberties (UK) at:
>Read CR&CL (UK) Report, 'Who Watches the Watchmen'