Re: [Raven] [FYI] NL: Intelligence agency authorized to scan satellite communications

"chefren" <> Wed, 12 April 2000 16:35 UTC

Received: from ( [] (may be forged)) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26797 for <>; Wed, 12 Apr 2000 12:35:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA27677; Wed, 12 Apr 2000 12:26:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (odin []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA27644 for <>; Wed, 12 Apr 2000 12:26:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA26300 for <>; Wed, 12 Apr 2000 12:28:49 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <>
Received: (qmail 22215 invoked from network); 12 Apr 2000 16:28:50 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO system) ( by with SMTP; 12 Apr 2000 16:28:50 -0000
From: "chefren" <>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 18:28:46 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: [Raven] [FYI] NL: Intelligence agency authorized to scan satellite communications
Priority: normal
In-reply-to: <000b01bfa48e$ae5ceca0$d964c8c7@genesis>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12b)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Raven Discussion List <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT

On 12 Apr 00, at 10:52, Richard Payne wrote:

> I note that even ch*fr*n does not care to defend random interception of
> satellite communications or gathering of economic intelligence, neither of
> which can reasonably be linked to a legitimate law enforcement purpose. This
> kind of random snooping is the best possible argument for the average user
> to adopt strong end-to-end crypto.

It isn't if you look a little bit further.

If encryption is free for end-users it's reasonable that 
law enforcement may place bugs to circumvent the real-world 
"no places to hide for the law" problem.

So communication providers, the ones that keep up satelites 
for the end users should crypt and law enforcement should 
stay out of homes as long as use of strong encryption isn't 
> A reverse onus of proof (two years for not being able to prove that you
> _don't_ have a key seems to follow) is also very troubling, at least to
> those of us who are used to "innocent until proven guilty".

All far too difficult and tricky. If encryption is 
regulated for end-users and provided by communication 
providers because law demands it, law enforcement can ask 
communication providers to decode messages and there are no 
further problems. Unless an end user do uses encryption, in 
that case law enforcement should be able to place bugs in 
> Since this is reported as being currently under debate in the Dutch
> parliament, does anyone have information on how the debate is going, and
> when this might become law?

There is little or maybe even no public debate as far as I 
know. I will post a report if I hear anything about it.

However, it's all in line with the laws that appeared in 
the last few years.


raven mailing list