Encryption as confidentiality marker

[PHalliden@baltimore.com]

 Ben Laurie said:

>Hmm. Encrypting text is different from encrypting executable code. The
>problem is that clearly mere encryption can't equate to "hands off", or
>the recipient couldn't read it, either. In the case of executable code,
>you have the recipient (the processor) in your hands, so there's an
>implied agreement that something in your possession should be able to
>read it. So, it is exactly the same (IMO) as reading the firmware of a
>device I own. Which I contend I _should_ be allowed to do, in the same
>way that I should be allowed to maintain my own car engine.
>


As I read the Times article, the Judge took the same view as Ben.  The
article reported the Judge as saying "[there was no] analogy with
eavesdropping or long-lens photography or phone-tapping: there was nothing
surreptitious in taking a thing apart to find out how it was made."  So
perhaps this case is not so relevant to the use of encryption to protect
communications from the eyes of the ungodly.

Regards
Paul Halliden