🚀 go-pugleaf

I wrote a letter to Steve Orlowski at the AG's Department and he wrote me a
reply. He has given me permission to repost this letter to the 'Net for
discussion. 

Here it is....



From STEVE.ORLOWSKI@AG.ausgovag.telememo.au Thu Aug 17 17:59 EST 1995
<headers deleted>
Subject: CRYPTOGRAPHY
<headers deleted>



Dear Dr Maddison

Thank you for your comments on the subject of the use of encryption by private
individuals.

Firstly I would like to make the point that the debate has arisen from one
person's interpretation of a paper I gave at a conference on "Cryptography
Policies and Algorithms"  The full text of that paper is now available on the
net at 

	http://commerce.anu.edu.au/comm/staff/RogerC/RogersHome.html

The paper carries a disclaimer at the top that the views are mine and do not
necessarily represent the views of the Australian Government.  The paper sets
out the Government's policy on telecommunications interception, which includes
the issue of the use of cryptography as:

"As a result of the Report, Australia is, among other TI issues, monitoring the
impact of encryption in the telecommunications interception area and will
re-examine matters in 1997 following the opening of the telecommunications area
to full competition."

Telecommunications covers both voice and data communications.

The last paragraph of the paper says that there is a need to expand the
cryptography debate to cover the needs of individual users in the context of
the information superhighway rather than current Internet users.  The paper
also points out that issues such as cost, convenience and public confidence in
cryptography systems will be the main issues.  Public confidence is explained
in terms that as long as it meets the general requirement for privacy it will
be acceptable.  I still maintain that the general user of the superhighway  in
the next century will be satisfied with a lower level of encryption which will
meet that and cost and user friendliness requirements.

On specific point made in the Internet message, the paper does not suggest,
either directly or by implication, that individuals should be banned from using
encryption.

Regarding the use of higher level encryption, the paper supports the concept of
commercial key escrow where organisations hold their own keys but may be
required to provide them in response to a court order.  the same would apply to
individuals who could either hold there own keys or store them with a
commercial body.  Access to those keys would be by court order and in that
respect is no different to existing procedures for the interception or seizure
of telephone conversations or paper records.  There is no suggestion that these
basic principles, and protection of individual's rights in general, should be
changed

If individuals were to use lower level encryption there would be no need for
them to maintain copies of any keys for such systems.  To my mind this is
preferable to a requirement for keys to be maintained for all encryption
systems, which could be the result if universal key escrow were introduced.

Finally on the question of interception, the general public expects a
reasonable level of law enforcement to ensure the protection of their person
and property.  Governments are required to find a balance between this and the
rights of individuals to privacy.  Part of this balance is to ensure that law
enforcement authorities convince a court that there is a need to carry out an
interception.  There is no suggestion that this fundamental approach should be
changed.  The paper certainly does not suggest that the Attorney-General's
Department should become a centralised interception authority.  In fact such a
role would not be consistent with its role as a source of advice to Government.

I hope the above clarifies both the Government's policy and my personal views
on these matters.

I consider this to be an open letter and have no objection to it being used as
such.

Yours sincerely




Steve Orlowski