Return-Path: <sentto-279987-1581-997452685-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com> Delivered-To: fc@all.net Received: from 204.181.12.215 by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Fri, 10 Aug 2001 07:12:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 32692 invoked by uid 510); 10 Aug 2001 13:13:30 -0000 Received: from n3.groups.yahoo.com (216.115.96.53) by 204.181.12.215 with SMTP; 10 Aug 2001 13:13:30 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-1581-997452685-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.4.56] by hj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 10 Aug 2001 14:11:25 -0000 X-Sender: fc@big.all.net X-Apparently-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 10 Aug 2001 14:11:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 77612 invoked from network); 10 Aug 2001 14:11:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 10 Aug 2001 14:11:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO big.all.net) (65.0.156.78) by mta3 with SMTP; 10 Aug 2001 14:11:11 -0000 Received: (from fc@localhost) by big.all.net (8.9.3/8.7.3) id HAA27275 for iwar@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 07:11:11 -0700 Message-Id: <200108101411.HAA27275@big.all.net> To: iwar@yahoogroups.com In-Reply-To: <20010810075656.43238.qmail@web14510.mail.yahoo.com> from "e.r." at Aug 10, 2001 12:56:56 AM Organization: I'm not allowed to say X-Mailer: don't even ask X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1] From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net> Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 07:11:11 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [iwar] Computer and Network Security vs. Information Privacy and Confidentiality Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Per the message sent by e.r.: ... > There is clearly a significant problem when the issue of computer > security and personal liberties are conflicted. How can we "deconflict" > this situation, or without a oversight body, will the net become more > like the "Dodge City" of old? It will be people v security v verification. > This has already become a problem with online businesses. What's next? I don't think that there is any doubt that someone's security and other people's personal liberties are conflicted. For example, those in the Federal law enforcement community have, over several generations, demonstrated their willingness to break the laws they claim to be trying to enforce in order to dig up dirt on people that were opposed to their political views. The extent to which they are now able to invade privacy is well beyond what it was in the days when the Constitution was created, and the Constitution was created, in large part, to stop the government from doing such things to its people. The big difference is that it's much more insidious now because it can be done covertly. No need to smash in the doors to watch what you do in the bedroom - they can do it with optical fibers and micro-cameras, or with infrared images through your walls from the street, or in the case of computers, from their positions inside your ISPs and phone companies. They reach out and touch people they don't like. I am personally appalled by the abuses I have seen, and I don't see very much at all compared to people like Martin Luther King and others who have opposed some of the opressionist views of our government from time to time. If you believe that nobody would do that today, you are only fooling yourself. > Tony's possible solution is interesting, but does it require all on the > net to be as cyber-literate as many on this space? I would like to hear > any suggestions. My view, as expressed in a policy decision a year or so ago, was to advise all of my clients to use encryption whenever they send anything important and to use it at other times so that the important things could not be identified so easily. I now believe that all computers should be mandated by law to encrypt everything all of the time with encryption that is sufficiently strong so that the government can break it only by focusing in on a small number of individuals - say the number currently authorized by the federal courts for tapping. It may not be easy to achieve this balance, but in the end, the people must protect themselves from the government they elect while the government must be able to do its legitimate job. FC --This communication is confidential to the parties it is intended to serve-- Fred Cohen Fred Cohen & Associates.........tel/fax:925-454-0171 fc@all.net The University of New Haven.....http://www.unhca.com/ http://all.net/ Sandia National Laboratories....tel:925-294-2087 ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Small business owners... Tell us what you think! http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/kgFolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> ------------------ http://all.net/ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-09-29 21:08:39 PDT