DT article

[Jeremy Barker]

Who is this ignoramus at the Torygraph?

I'm sure that there are no end of ways that an encrypted message could
be disguised so it appears to be something else.  Want to see my table
of experimental data?

In any case there are ways that you can communicate secretly without
using encryption - especially if you use pre-arranged messages.  If
someone sent the message: "Alice started school yesterday." would you
know what it really meant?  Do you understand all the messages in the
personal column of the Daily Telegraph?

While superficially attractive, the idea that an ISP could block
encrypted messages is, I believe, a total non-starter.  It has no more
chance of being an enforcable ban than does banning the use of
cryptography or certain types of cryptography.  Any ban that isn't
enforcable will never be effective against criminals, let alone
determined terrorists.

jb


Neil McEvoy wrote:

> From article by Jihn Keegan, in today's Daily Telegraph:
>
> =============================
> The World Trade Centre outrage was co-ordinated on the internet,
> without question. If Washington is serious in its determination to
> eliminate terrorism, it will have to forbid internet providers to
> allow the transmission of encrypted messages - now encoded by public
> key ciphers that are unbreakable even by the National Security
> Agency's computers - and close down any provider that refuses to
> comply.
>
> Uncompliant providers on foreign territory should expect their
> buildings to be destroyed by cruise missiles. Once the internet is
> implicated in the killing of Americans, its high-rolling days may be
> reckoned to be over.
>
> ==============================