brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (03/22/91)
Before too long, secure public key cryptosystems will make routine personal communications 100% secure. You'll use E-mail and digital voice, but since it's easy, you'll use security all the time. Your key will probably be stored in a smartcard or smartwatch that you carry with you. On your computers, it will be stored in RAM -- you'll need to enter your password when you boot. The criminal community will jump to get ahold of this technology, although it won't be sold for them at first. But even we non-criminals can see the virtue in routine security. Nobody wants to be wiretapped or E-mail snooped. (E-mail will get this first. The ECPA lets them look at your E-mail with a warrant, but soon that will become valueless to them, unless your E-mail provider refuses to take encrypted data!) I have been told that the drug merchants are already using Prodigy as a communications base, simply because it's harder from a logistic standpoint to do the tapping, at least right now. (In theory, it should be easier, until they encrypt) But some day it will all be encrypted as a matter of course. How will the law, public and the police react to this? Will they pass laws forbidding encrypted communication? I can hardly see this getting by the ACLU and others, but there is still a risk. Will they have to do lightning raids on people they suspect to grab their computers while they are still on with the keys in ram? Rip your smartwatch off your wrist to get your code? Will they be more tempted to violate your rights to extort your code out of you? Will the courts be able to force you to reveal your code, or will this be considered unfair self-incrimination under the bills of rights? We know what it should be. But the police are powerful, and they will react very badly to the elimination of the wiretap from their arsenal. How will they catch some of the criminals they now do catch with this tool? Even if Jane Public is not that careful, the Mafia will be. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
randolph@cognito.Eng.Sun.COM (Randolph Fritz) (03/23/91)
The US National Security Agency has been reacting to secure communications technology for quite a while now, mostly by attempting to classify it and developments in this area. Since much research is done with Department of Defense grants, they are moderately successful at classification. By the way, it's likely that the NSA is monitoring this group, if only for recording. nd t ou ui R Press T __Randolph Fritz sun!cognito.eng!randolph || randolph@eng.sun.com ou ui Mountain View, California, North America, Earth nd t
wrf@mab.ecse.rpi.edu (Wm Randolph Franklin) (03/24/91)
In article <1991Mar22.084413.25223@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: > >Will the courts be able to force you to reveal your code, or will this >be considered unfair self-incrimination under the bills of rights? Well, the courts already have forced people to sign orders to foreign banks telling the bank to reveal the person's account info. Sorry, I lied. The courts didn't FORCE anyone to do anything; just made it a condition of their purging a charge of criminal contempt (for refusing to reveal the info in the first place) and getting out of jail. Contempt is a crime with a life sentence w/o parole. One way to avoid bill-of-rights problems (and beyond-reasonable-doubt problems) is to make it a civil case. -- Wm. Randolph Franklin Internet: wrf@ecse.rpi.edu (or @cs.rpi.edu) Bitnet: Wrfrankl@Rpitsmts Telephone: (518) 276-6077; Telex: 6716050 RPI TROU; Fax: (518) 276-6261 Paper: ECSE Dept., 6026 JEC, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst, Troy NY, 12180