From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Subject: Re: sci.crypt.science
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 20:03:54 GMT


First, since this is my only way of communicating with the folks at
ghost.dsi.unimi.it, let me say to David Vincenzetti that our mail
router still refuses to pass mail to his site. Our sysop says he sent
several messages to David but got no reply. David says he took local
action to deal with those from his site who were cracking accounts at
our site, but our sysop is still concerned, and can't seem to resolve
things with David because he can't seem to get a communication going.
So it looks like that site won't be accessible for mail or ftp-ing
from here for the indefinite future, though the echo sites work fine.
The person for David to contact, to try to get this resolved, is
hoodr@netcom.com. He needs to do so in a way that will permit
him to receive replies from hoodr, i.e. via some intermediate
mail address not at ghost.

Next to the point David makes about cryptography being in aid of
privacy.

Let's talk straight here (not that David isn't):

This is an arena in which there are a number of parties at interest,
each with legitimate interests, some of which impinge on the interests
of other parties. Thus, presenting one set of interests as if it were
the whole story is badly misleading, though if it were presented as
the interests of a particular party, rather than "the truth", it might
be perfectly legitimate.

One's own encryption:
Honest privacy lovers want unbreakable cryptography to protect their
honest messages;
Crooks want it to protect their criminal activities;
People with something to fear, which may not be strictly illegal,
such as cheating on one's wife, want it to protect those things;
People who are afraid of crooks want to to protect, for example,
legitimate financial transactions;
Governments want it to protect military and intelligence secrets;
Businesses want it to protect competitive information;
etc.

The encryptions of others:
Governments are against it for crooks and spies, unless they can
break the traffic;
Governments are against it for others who may be crooks and spies,
since eavesdropping is one way they find out about such people;
Crooks would like to be able to monitor governments (police radios, etc.)
Businesses would like to crack their competitors' secrets;
etc. etc.

Note the both lists are incomplete, and gloss over such details as
laws regulating Government eavesdropping and laws regulating private
cryptography. To put all the caveats in each line would make this
message much longer, so no flames on either point--I recognize that
there are process and regulatory limitations on government
eavesdropping in many countries. I'm trying to make only one point in
this message: Different parties have different legitimate interests in
the matter, and many conflicting interests are legitimate to some
parties, though not others.

To argue a narrow single position in order to demonize another position
is both unfair and inappropriate.

David

-- 
David Sternlight
RIPEM Public Key on server  --  Consider it an envelope for your e-mail

Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.security.pgp,misc.legal