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

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.

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".

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?

Richard Payne

----- Original Message -----
From: chefren <chefren@pi.net>
To: <raven@ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 4:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Raven] [FYI] NL: Intelligence agency authorized to scan
satellite communications

> On 11 Apr 00, at 15:41, William Allen Simpson forwarded:
>
> > The new powers of the BVD are also interesting because some articles
> > are related to cryptography and information technology. The BVD is
> > authorized to break into homes and offices to bug keyboards. Besides
> > that, the BVD is authorized to break into computers and steal, alter
> > or delete information that is stored in computers. In other words,
> > the BVD is allowed to hack. In this way, the intelligence agency can
> > steal data from computers, manipulate software, corrupt passwords or
> > install a Trojan Horse, so access is secured and cryptography can be
> > bypassed.
>
>
>
> I hope nobody was shocked by the article, that's inevitably
> what you get if Encryption is free and law enforcement
> needs means. It is a legalised electronic form of a
> "razzia" and should be avoided as much as possible in a
> decent society in my opinion.
>
> (Nothing new in the article, the BVD, our internal
> intelligence agency that only may report to the heads of
> goverment, tapped already and all kind of things. Lots of
> things are now more and more specified in laws. Microphones
> in homes were allowed for use by the police some months
> ago, the use of encryption by criminals certainly made it
> easier to pass that law.)
>
>
>
> I know I'm extremely bad understood by most of you but
> still think we need the following:
>
> Communication providers should be demanded by law to
> encrypt the data of their customers and the customers
> themselves should not be allowed to encrypt. The police
> shouldn't be allowed to enter homes for placing bugs
> without proof that the suspected are using encryption to
> hide their communication.
>
> +++chefren
>
> p.s. There is still some time to reject that
> everything but new pointless American-macho RFC...
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> raven mailing list
> raven@ietf.org
> http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/raven

_______________________________________________
raven mailing list
raven@ietf.org
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/raven