[9594] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: dejavu, Re: Hijackers' e-mails were unencrypted
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Adam Fields)
Fri Oct 5 14:04:14 2001
Message-Id: <200110051716.f95HGtR16830@sparkle.generation.net>
To: Ed Gerck <egerck@nma.com>
Cc: Adam Fields <fields@surgam.net>, ji@research.att.com,
cryptography@wasabisystems.com
From: Adam Fields <fields@surgam.net>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 03 Oct 2001 16:22:54 PDT."
<3BBB9DCE.50A52B5E@nma.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 13:16:55 -0400
Ed Gerck says:
> In addition, we also need to avoid to add fuel to that misconception,
> that encryption is somehow "dangerous" or should be controlled
> as weapons are. The only function of a weapon is to inflict harm.
> The only function of encryption is to provide privacy.
But that's not true - encryption has many other functions. Chief among
these is secrecy, which is not by a long shot the same as privacy. The
issue is not whether encryption can be used for criminal purposes or
not, or whether encryption is "dangerous" (it can and it is - like any
other technology, it crosses the boundaries of intent) - the issue is
whether perceived restriction on the use of "illegitimate" uses of
encryption is worth the limitations on the "legitimate" ones, and
whether doing so will indeed solve the problem or simply make it
worse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@wasabisystems.com
