From: Sherry Mayo <scmayo@rsc.anu.edu.au>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 21:21:28 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Irony on strong encryption in Australia
Message-ID: <199607120421.VAA17567@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


> The Australian Broadcasting Authority's report on Internet regulation issues
> recommends that ISPs be required to support unescrowed strong encryption for
> their users' privacy and security.
> 
> Electronic Frontiers Australia is opposed to this idea because it puts too
> much of a burden on the ISP.

Are you sure you have this right. I've just joined the EFA, and am concerned 
about this, but I can't find any such comment on the EFA site.

The relevant portion of the ABA document is as follows

"The ABA considers that users with particular requirements for privacy 
should be able to obtain advice from their service providers
on the use of encryption and the availability of suitable products to 
render messages unreadable by unauthorised persons."

This is hardly a huge burden and I would be surprised if the EFA objects
to it. I looked at their press release concerning the ABA report but saw
no mention of any problems with this "encryption advice" policy. Maybe
I'm looking in the wrong place?

Anyway, the main problem for the EFA at the moment is the "Son of CDA" 
legislation
currently being proposed by the NSW attorney-general.

Sherry