| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Cryptography Forum » My response to a message by Dorothy Denning in 1995 - Austra
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| General X |
 Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2004 5:19 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dear Dorothy,
It is funny that when I lived in an automobile from 2000 to 2002 in
the U.S.A. after my divorce from my former U.S. spouse I stayed on
these campuses (I know that Madeleine Albright likes to stay on the
university campuses - I have learned from all) where these people are
actually still working. I was just a nobody and you would have ingored
me as a nobody. I went to libraries etc. I was somebody who smelled
occasionally and lived a very low life in the same way as Ted Kasinzky
(the brilliant mathematician and unabomber) and John Nash (the Nobel
Prize winner) (both are my heroes). I liked also the computer systems
of Georgetown that I used without any permit although I had no access
codes and rights to the system. Somebody had just left their session
open. Often happens in the real world that somebody just lefts their
system and session open and you do not need any codebreakers to
penetrate to very critical systems (sometimes you just jump over the
fence and go to the terminal). This was just before I spent my night
near the White House in my automobile. Actually, I have the same
automobile here in Varkaus, Finland.
Make Von Islander (X)
Also known in the city of Varkaus as a person who has still one of the
surviving KGB mindsets in Varkaus.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 15:29:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dorothy Denning <denning@cs.cosc.georgetown.edu>
To: MFROOMKI@umiami.ir.miami.edu
Cc: denning@cs.cosc.georgetown.edu
Subject: Australia and Encryption Policy
Quote: From denning Wed Aug 23 15:14:25 1995
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 95 15:13:05 EDT
From: denning (Dorothy Denning)
Full-Name: Dorothy Denning
To: farber@cis.upenn.edu, risks@csl.sri.com, banisar@washofc.epic.org
Subject: Australia and Encryption Policy
Cc: denning, Ross.Anderson@cl.cam.ac.uk
Content-Length: 4390
Ross Anderson posted a message on the net recently stating that
Australia was proposing an encryption policy that would force
residents
to use weak cryptography while banks would get key escrow. His source
was a talk by Steve Orlowski, who is Assistant Director, Security
Management, in the Australian Attorney-General's Department.
Attached is a copy of an open letter by Mr. Orlowski in response to
that post. He is not proposing that individuals be forced to use weak
encryption. Key escrow would be an option available to anyone wanting
a high level of encryption. Organizations and individuals could
escrow
their own keys if desired.
This message and his letter may be forwarded.
Dorothy Denning
---------------
Dear
Thank you for your comments on the subject of the use of encryption by
private individuals.
Firstly I would like to make the point that the debate has arisen from
one person's interpretation of a paper I gave at a conference on
"Cryptography Policies and Algorithms" The full text of that paper is
now available on the net at
http://commerce.anu.edu.au/comm/staff/RogerC/RogersHome.html
The paper carries a disclaimer at the top that the views are mine and
do not necessarily represent the views of the Australian Government.
The paper sets out the Government's policy on telecommunications
interception, which includes the issue of the use of cryptography as:
"As a result of the Report, Australia is, among other TI issues,
monitoring the impact of encryption in the telecommunications
interception area and will re-examine matters in 1997 following the
opening of the telecommunications area to full competition."
Telecommunications covers both voice and data communications.
The last paragraph of the paper says that there is a need to expand
the
cryptography debate to cover the needs of individual users in the
context of the information superhighway rather than current Internet
users. The paper also points out that issues suh as cost, convenience
and public confidence in cryptography systems will be the main issues.
Public confidence is explained in terms that as long as it meets the
general requirement for privacy it will be acceptable. I still
maintain that the general user of the superhighway in the next century
will be satisfied with a lower level of encryption which will meet
that
and cost and user friendliness requirements.
On specific point made in the Internet message, the paper does not
suggest, either directly or by implication, that individuals should be
banned from using encryption.
Regarding the use of higher level encryption, the paper supports the
concept of commercial key escrow where organisations hold their own
keys but may be required to provide them in response to a court order.
The same would apply to individuals who could either hold there own
keys
or store them with a commercial body. Access to those keys would be
by
court order and in that respect is no different to existing procedures
for the interception or seizure of telephone conversations or paper
records. There is no suggestion that these basic principles, and
protection of individual's rights in general, should be changed
If individuals were to use lower level encryption there would be no
need for them to maintain copies of any keys for such systems. To my
mind this is preferable to a requirement for keys to be maintained for
all encryption systems, which could be the result if universal key
escrow were introduced.
Finally on the question of interception, the general public expects a
reasonable level of law enforcement to ensure the protection of their
person and property. Governments are required to find a balance
between this and the rights of individuals to privacy. Part of this
balance is to ensure that law enforcement authorities convince a court
that there is a need to carry out an interception. There is no
suggestion that this fundamental approach should be changed. The
paper
certainly does not suggest tha the Attorney-General's Department
should
become a centralised interception authority. In fact such a role
would
not be consistent with its role as a source of advice to Government.
I hope the above clarifies both the Government's policy and my
personal
views on these matters.
I consider this to be an open letter and have no objection to it being
used as such.
Yours sincerely
Steve Orlowski
----- End Included Message ----- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Oct 07, 2008 4:10 pm
|
|