[in a discussion about governments limiting encryption or the distribution
 of encryption software and hardware]

>   The legitlators accept the position of the Security Forces according to
>   which "limiting the use of encryption and limiting the distribution of
>   sophisticated security systems will help the defense organizations to
>   intercept messages containing information that can lead to to the
>   circumvention of terrorist acts. On the other hand, giving encryption

Years ago, American legislators were worried about "criminals" (see for
example the Clipper Chip fiasco) and used that as an excuse [1] to harras
and limit the freedoms of law-abiding citizens. Now they can brand their
anti-freedom laws as patriotic, because they are against "terrorists".

> And what about technologies that are already available to the public (e.g:
> the american legislation regarding open-source (?) encryption
> technologies)?

Note that there's a difference between allowing export or importing some
encryption technology, and allowing actually using it. If you somehow manage
to get yourself a gun, does that mean you're allowed to use it? Of course
not! Similarly the fact that some encryption software is easily obtainable
(as open source, Internet Explorer, encryption hardwer, or whatever) does
not mean that it can be legally used in Israel.

Last time I checked, Israel has some sort of law called "chok hatsofen",
that limits not only the export of encryption software (like the American
ITAR or EAR), but also the actual use of encryption. If I remember correctly
it forbids *any* sort of encryption, unless otherwise exempted in the law,
with exemptions given to very-low-grade encryption and to specific software
(e.g., I think Internet Explorer and Netscape were listed).

This "chok hatsofen" actually affects (or at least affected, I don't know
if it has changed since) Israeli citizens, unfortunately. A few years ago,
a system administrator I know disabled one of the encryption algorithms in
SSH on his system (a system used by hundreds of users) because he found it
was technically illegal in Israel.

[1] Off-topic footnote:
    The United States constitution has gone to great lengths to protect
    citizens from being harrassed by the government's law-enforcement
    agencies. From their experience with British soldiers, the founding
    fathers knew that "absolute power corrupts absolutely", i.e., given
    absolute power over the citizens these agencies will start applying it
    arbitrarily for less-than-kosher purposes.
    These citizens' rights were written in the Bill of Rights, the first
    10 amendments to the US constitution. The first amendment gave the
    citizens the rights of free speech and free assembly. The second
    amendment allowed citizens to carry guns (this amendment is still very
    controversial). The third amendment prevented the military from taking
    over your house. The fourth amendment prevented the police from
    searching your property without probably cause and a warrent. The rest
    of the bill of rights deals with the criminal prosecution process and
    punishment.
    Therefore in the US, it has been almost a "religion" that the police
    (or FBI, DEA, ATF, or whatever) should not have absolute power to track
    citizens, even given the dangers of "crime". But the conviction in these
    truths have dangerously deteriorated in the last decades, until now they
    found the perfect ruse to destroy the constitution: terrorism.

-- 
Nadav Har'El                        |        Monday, Sep 9 2002, 3 Tishri 5763


In the US, supporters of the second amendment, like the NRA (National Rifle
Association) and ESR (Eric S. Raymond ;) see http://tuxedo.org/~esr/guns/)
have the saying "If guns were outlawed, only outlaws would have guns!".

Similarly with encryption: if encryption were outlawed, law-abiding citizens
would not use it, but criminals (or terrorists) still could, if they only
have the minimal amount of sophistication needed to getting hold of an
encryption software that doesn't come prepackaged with your Windows.

-- 
Nadav Har'El                        |        Monday, Sep 9 2002, 3 Tishri 5763


[about the cryptography limiting laws in Israel not being enforced]

"dead letter" laws that people believe they'll never get prosecuted
for, are very dangerous. Our wonderful Minister of Interior has just brought
to life such a dead law that nobody has EVER dared to use before him, that
gives him the right to take away someone's citizenship. A law that was never
used on spys, traitors, mass murderers, and rapists would never be used
against you, right? Well.... Wrong.

Are you so sure you won't be next? Maybe your citizenship will be taken away
from you for signing your mail with GPG? :) Sure, they won't go after
everyone - just after people that happen to be a pain-in-the-a** for the
relevant minister (be careful not to go on a demonstration outside his
house!), or perhaps after someone of the "wrong" minority group...

-- 
Nadav Har'El                        |      Tuesday, Sep 10 2002, 4 Tishri 5763