Cryptography Reference
In-Depth Information
way to prove the crime happened is to record the conversation or
get someone to testify. Obviously, the recorded conversation is much
more convincing evidence. State and local police in some states are
not allowed to use wiretaps at all. Some police officers suggest that
this isn't an accident. The politicians recognized that the only real
targets for wiretaps were politicians. They were the primary ones
who broke laws in conversation. Almost all other lawbreaking in-
volved some physical act that might leave other evidence.
The power to create secret deals that this technology offers is
numbing. The only consolation is that these deals have been made
in the past and only a fool would believe that they won't be made in
the future. No wiretap laws stopped them before cryptography be-
came cheap. Meeting people face to face to conduct illegal business
also has other benefits. You can judge people better in person. Also,
locations like bars where such deals may be made offer drinks and
often food. You can't get that in cyberspace.
The fact that crooks found ways to elude wiretaps in the past can
be easily extended to parallel a popular argument made by the Na-
tional Rifle Association. If cryptography is outlawed, only outlaws
will have cryptography. People who murder, smuggle, or steal will
probably not feel much hesitation to violate a law that simply gov-
erns how they send bits back and forth. Honest people who obey
any law regulating cryptography will find themselves easy marks for
those who want to steal their secrets.
I mulled over all of these thoughts while I was writing this topic.
I've almost begun to feel that the dispute is not really about tech-
nology. If criminals can always avoid the law, this won't change with
more technology. The police have always been forced to adapt to
new technology and they will have to do the same here.
In the end, I began concentrating on how to balance the power
relationships. If power can be dispersed successfully, then the results
of abuse can be limited. If individuals can control their affairs, then
they are less likely to be dominated by others. If they're forced to
work in the open, then they're more likely to be controlled.
The dishonest will never yield to the law that tells them not to
use any form of steganography. The cliche of gangsters announcing
the arrival of a shipment of 10,000 bananas will be with us forever.
The question is whether the honest should have access to the tools
to protect their privacy. Cryptography and steganography give indi-
viduals this power and this is, for better or for worse, the best place
that it should be.
