From: Jeff Barber <jeffb@issl.atl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 12:14:29 -0800 (PST)
To: "Phillip M. Hallam-Baker" <hallam@ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Newt's phone calls
Message-ID: <199701212014.MAA11069@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Phillip M. Hallam-Baker writes:

> Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk> wrote in article <5bp18k$1cc@life.ai.mit.edu>...

> > It could be worse to have poor crypto, than no crypto,
> 
> I disagree for two reasons,

[ snip]

> The danger in weak crypto is thinking that it is strong crypto. GSM is
> weak crypto but stops the type of snooping the Martins engaged in.
> If you know not to talk about something secret on one then low
> crypto is better than having a signal anyone can pick up on a 
> device from radio shack.

No, the real danger in weak crypto is that the poorly-informed will not
think about it *at all*.  If we had "poor crypto", Newt probably wouldn't
have been embarrassed by this sort of casual interception, and the issue
wouldn't have been raised in the public mind.  But our communications
still wouldn't be safe from more determined attackers.  Brouhahas like
these are good for the pro-(strong-)crypto agenda.


-- Jeff