Windows 7 can allow potentially incriminating data (such as child pornography) to be encrypted on a user's hard drive and make detection by police "impossible", experts in Australia claim. Speaking to News.com.au, Hetty Johnson, a member of the Federal Government, called on Microsoft to act now and make immediate changes. "If this new product gives paedophiles protection to keep harming children I would be extremely disappointed. I would expect the company to take moves to rectify this."Australian law states that authorities can obtain warrants to use a Trojan horse to gain access to a computer's data, but unlike British law, refusing to decrypt data when requested by the police is completely legal. Adrian McCullagh, of the Queensland University of Technology, believes that current laws slow down police in their investigations. "They need to act quickly and legal powers to force criminals to surrender decryption keys or face a possible jail term."
Despite encryption being present in Windows for several years, Dr McCullagh fears that "with so many people using Microsoft, within years most people will have access to this technology…there are legitimate reasons for encryption, but there are also criminal reasons."
How about Australian law be made more in line with British law then? Problem solved.
If you have nothing to hide, the show all right?
Can I come inside your house? No? You must have something to hide.... (I think not)
If you have nothing to hide, the show all right?
Screw that. If an officer ever pulls me over wanting to search my car I'd tell him to go get a warrant. I'm not letting them step on my rights because I "have nothing to hide."
If a court really thinks some data that is encrypted is child pornography, they can hold the person in contempt of court unless they decrypt the data (I think).
If you have nothing to hide, the show all right?
Screw that. If an officer ever pulls me over wanting to search my car I'd tell him to go get a warrant. I'm not letting them step on my rights because I "have nothing to hide."
I hope you enjoy the savage tazing you're going to get then.
If you have nothing to hide, the show all right?
Screw that. If an officer ever pulls me over wanting to search my car I'd tell him to go get a warrant. I'm not letting them step on my rights because I "have nothing to hide."
I hope you enjoy the savage tazing you're going to get then.
Your comment further illuminates the issues of our law enforcement and elected officials.
Or who knows what else the fascist lunatics that have taken over Australia will decide is unlawful next. Wow, and I thought Bush-Halliburton was bad.
It's not about what they're searching for, it's about your rights as human beings. It's not just child porn they're after, they want control.
It's about government control of your life! Do you want rights to privacy and PRIVATE PROPERTY or not?
Can I come inside your house? No? You must have something to hide.... (I think not)
What an odd comparison lol
If you have nothing to hide, the show all right?
Screw that. If an officer ever pulls me over wanting to search my car I'd tell him to go get a warrant. I'm not letting them step on my rights because I "have nothing to hide."
I hope you enjoy the savage tazing you're going to get then.
Your comment further illuminates the issues of our law enforcement and elected officials.
More like it further illuminates the issues of morons that don't listen to the cops. If you don't listen to the cops, you deserve a brutal tazing to the scrotum.
This is a very true statement. It sux that very few people hold the rest of the community hostage because they're sick-in-the-head. Humanity will look back on the Internet and see it for what it's worth, more a sexual playground and less a betterment of humanity. It's made everyone super paranoid and overly suspicious.
Your comment further illuminates the issues of our law enforcement and elected officials.
More like it further illuminates the issues of morons that don't listen to the cops. If you don't listen to the cops, you deserve a brutal tazing to the scrotum.
You might not know it, but people actually have rights. And cops are not allowed to just do anything (just like they're not allowed to search a house without a warrant).
The idea that not wanting to decrypt your hard drive in itself means that you are guilty, is ridiculous. It means that you're not cooperating, but it does not provide proof of having something illegal on your hard drive.
They don't always need a warrant to search a house, such as if you were just arrested for possession of drugs on the street.
They don't always need a warrant to search a house, such as if you were just arrested for possession of drugs on the street.
You mean if they have REASONABLE SUSPICION. Getting pulled over for a traffic violation does not warrant reasonable suspicion.
It's not that hard to say, "Officer, I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I would rather not have you look through my things... I'm just not comfortable with someone I don't know looking through everything."
They don't always need a warrant to search a house, such as if you were just arrested for possession of drugs on the street.
They dont need a warrant however they need a good cause, i.e. they can't just pull you over and search your car. If they search you and find drugs they can then go onto to search your car.
Can I come inside your house? No? You must have something to hide.... (I think not)
You can if you really want to.
If the police suspect me of hiding bombs in my underwear draw, then if they have to open it for me to prove them wrong, then go ahead
More like it further illuminates the issues of morons that don't listen to the cops. If you don't listen to the cops, you deserve a brutal tazing to the scrotum.[/quote]
Most of the time, I think the Tea Partiers are a bunch of Neanderthals but then I read stuff like this and then their rants make perfect sense. If the attitude in this country has become you either submit to the unconstitutional orders of police or you get tazed, maybe we do need a political reset.
If you have nothing to hide, the show all right?
Screw that. If an officer ever pulls me over wanting to search my car I'd tell him to go get a warrant. I'm not letting them step on my rights because I "have nothing to hide."
I hope you enjoy the savage tazing you're going to get then.
Your comment further illuminates the issues of our law enforcement and elected officials.
More like it further illuminates the issues of morons that don't listen to the cops. If you don't listen to the cops, you deserve a brutal tazing to the scrotum.
It's people like you that assist the government in taking away our freedoms. Whether or not you're guilty, the law stipulates "innocent until proven guilty" and without the proper paperwork, authority and representation, you are having this liberty stripped from you. Its those who refuse to fight for their rights as an individual who are slowly letting this world turn into the bloody mess that it is. Those who are too lazy to fight for themselves far outnumber those who realize what their rights are and are willing to fight for them.
If you have nothing to hide, the show all right?
Screw that. If an officer ever pulls me over wanting to search my car I'd tell him to go get a warrant. I'm not letting them step on my rights because I "have nothing to hide."
I hope you enjoy the savage tazing you're going to get then.
Your comment further illuminates the issues of our law enforcement and elected officials.
More like it further illuminates the issues of morons that don't listen to the cops. If you don't listen to the cops, you deserve a brutal tazing to the scrotum.
It's people like you that assist the government in taking away our freedoms. Whether or not you're guilty, the law stipulates "innocent until proven guilty" and without the proper paperwork, authority and representation, you are having this liberty stripped from you. Its those who refuse to fight for their rights as an individual who are slowly letting this world turn into the bloody mess that it is. Those who are too lazy to fight for themselves far outnumber those who realize what their rights are and are willing to fight for them.
If you feel like you're being charged unfairly, you can take it up with the courts afterwards. That's your right. You don't have the right to disobey the cops and fight with them just because you don't feel like co-operating.
[/quote]
More like it further illuminates the issues of morons that don't listen to the cops. If you don't listen to the cops, you deserve a brutal tazing to the scrotum.[/quote]
Most of the time, I think the Tea Partiers are a bunch of Neanderthals but then I read stuff like this and then their rants make perfect sense. If the attitude in this country has become you either submit to the unconstitutional orders of police or you get tazed, maybe we do need a political reset.[/quote]
I'm not American
If you have nothing to hide, the show all right?
Screw that. If an officer ever pulls me over wanting to search my car I'd tell him to go get a warrant. I'm not letting them step on my rights because I "have nothing to hide."
I hope you enjoy the savage tazing you're going to get then.
Your comment further illuminates the issues of our law enforcement and elected officials.
More like it further illuminates the issues of morons that don't listen to the cops. If you don't listen to the cops, you deserve a brutal tazing to the scrotum.
It's people like you that assist the government in taking away our freedoms. Whether or not you're guilty, the law stipulates "innocent until proven guilty" and without the proper paperwork, authority and representation, you are having this liberty stripped from you. Its those who refuse to fight for their rights as an individual who are slowly letting this world turn into the bloody mess that it is. Those who are too lazy to fight for themselves far outnumber those who realize what their rights are and are willing to fight for them.
If you feel like you're being charged unfairly, you can take it up with the courts afterwards. That's your right. You don't have the right to disobey the cops and fight with them just because you don't feel like co-operating.
Reading through this, so according to Mr Ji, refusing to allow the police to search through your car counts as "fighting" and uncooperative and deserve a tazer.
The issue here isn't whether or not you can fight it in the judicial system, the issue here is just privacy. I could not give a donkey's bottom that I could get an apology from the cops if they get it wrong, but I do have a problem when someone looks at my personal stuff.
It is clear this poster have a very high opinion of the cops, probably because the cops in where he live in is good, and good for him. But regardless of how good they are, they are not saints. They are not above the law, they got conducts that they need to obey which ensures everything they do is within the law. If the officer have no rights and reason to search through your possession, then they shouldn't. If they have no immediate public safety concern, then they have no reason to search through anything. I have the right to disobey a cop that is not performing his or her duty properly.
If I say no, and use no confrontational tone, should I get tazered? I think not. And if cops can search through your car at their pleasure, does it matter we have the right to the courts? All we get is heavy load on the judiciary system and we will get to the point it doesn't matter anymore since it will take too long. And if that happens, it also mean we lose the ability to keep our privacy, even if the "right" is still there. If we can call it a right in this case.
If you have nothing to hide, the show all right?
Screw that. If an officer ever pulls me over wanting to search my car I'd tell him to go get a warrant. I'm not letting them step on my rights because I "have nothing to hide."
I hope you enjoy the savage tazing you're going to get then.
Your comment further illuminates the issues of our law enforcement and elected officials.
More like it further illuminates the issues of morons that don't listen to the cops. If you don't listen to the cops, you deserve a brutal tazing to the scrotum.
Way to tow the line like a good little sheep.
If someone wants to encrypt something, let them encrypt whatever they want.
Cuz this is why Microsoft put an encryption system in Windows OS's rite?
Does it really have one?
Yeah I think if that were the case then we'd all know about it. That would be pretty big news and something I'm sure we'd see in an "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" commercial.
+1 !!
Couldn't have wrote it better myself!
Yes, Positivity is a good thing but then how would they spin stories to scare and manipulate the public to influence more repressive policies? Ban everything because someone, somewhere at sometime will use something to commit a crime and we must stop it at all costs!
FFS
Soon, Microsoft can't include a File Explorer......Ugh. Get a life you irrational companies trying to sue Microsoft for making superior products.
Ban hard drives - they can be used to store incriminating pictures.
Ban monitors - they can be used to view incriminating pictures.
Ban the internet, it can be used to transfer incriminating files.
Ban hard drives - they can be used to store incriminating pictures.
Ban monitors - they can be used to view incriminating pictures.
Ban the internet, it can be used to transfer incriminating files.
Exactly.
Ban hard drives - they can be used to store incriminating pictures.
Ban monitors - they can be used to view incriminating pictures.
Ban the internet, it can be used to transfer incriminating files.
...Ban eyes.
But there is an ultimate solution for this: ban children!
P.S. Wait until they found out that more then 95% of parents let their children walk naked beneath childrens' clothes.
Who's with me for abolishing adults? Yea, irrational, isn't it? So is this article's purpose.
Who's with me for abolishing adults? Yea, irrational, isn't it? So is this article's purpose.
No no no, I think you're on to something here, lets ban every person above the age of 18, send them too the moon... of course, that would include me... and pretty much everyone I know... and half the under 18 population of the world would starve to death being unable to feed themselves...
Actually, now that I work it out, it doesn't sound that bad, once half of them die off, all us adults could declare war on the oppresive children governments and (re)invade the Earth.
Google would love this. Thier cloud/Google os would be there 'not being evil'
We're on to you Microsoft, we know you support terrorism!
/s.
if(trojanFound.Contains("This is from the Government. For realz"){
ignore();
}
:/
Kind of defeats the purpose of security if they allow this. Whilst I am sickened by these perverts and want to see them locked up in name of protecting young innocent lives, leaving a backdoor open in any form is an invite for hackers to take a crack of discovering said back door, then unbreakable bitlocker encryption is breakable, allowing access to your sensitive data.
Is you government chinese? I thought it was australian.
I would say: Government doesn't fall far from the People.
Tip to governments: EMPLOY PEOPLE WHO KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT THE SUBJECT.
Btw, if I'm right the British law is wrong, as the EU law says you have the right to refuse coorperation if you are a suspect, right?
http://www.out-law.com//default.aspx?page=9514 - This is an interesting read about a case.
First they tried to force Microsoft to have a backdoor for them and when this didn't work, they passed a law in October 2007 to enforce people to give away the encryption key when asked.
What I don't understand is that why it took Austratralia 3 years to realise this??
By the way, I have lived in the Netherlands for 7 years. Great country. Greetings from New York.
And New York, nice
Honestly, sometimes I don't get how people think.
Car?
so with programs like that out there available to pretty much anyone, it's totally pointless to blame Microsoft.
"May we search your computer, sir?"
"Sure, you won't find anything" Muahahaha, they shall never find the encrypted Bible!!
Lol.
I have never LOL'd at a comment before but this one took the cake. Cheers to you.
best comment i've read this month. lol
Beyond the basic social arguments of how stupid this is, as they could argue against safety deposit boxes and uncrackable safes just as easily, so let's look at this from a technology 'knowledge' viewpoint...
1) NTFS encryption has existed for many years, Windows7 isn't the first to have it, and it was as strong back in Win2k as it is in Win7. And yes you can lock yourself and any administrator out of anything. This is why corporations have (or should have) Group Policies that set a global administration encryption key. A child pervert could have been using NTFS encryption on their computer for 10 years now, and people are just now noticing?
2) Bitlocker is the new volume level encyrption, but it was also in Vista. So this is new again how?
3) There are hunderds of both Open Source and closed source encryption software that even goes beyond the '128/256bit' level encryption of Win7 technologies. Anyone with internet access can download encryption software or spend a few bucks for software that encrypt entire computers that are IMPOSSIBLE to crack.
(Most insurance companies make it mandatory that their agents run this type of software so that all client records are stored on encyrpted volumes that no one but the Agent can acces, without a bunch of super computers and 20 or 30 years to decrpyt it.)
I can understand 'concerns' but really, this HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH Windows7 other than ignornance or to try to grab headlines. For the non-technical people, do a search on encyrption software and technology, from PGP to various other brand names of tools, this is not new and is something law enforcement should have been aware of long before this, and with these other technologies there also is NO BACKDOOR.
Geesh....
I'm not condoning illegal actions of those in possession of illegal material like child porn. But if authority's can get access to individuals data like that when it's encrypted then we as general public should be able to do the same for national defense and security classified documents on government and industry computers.
Juxtapositions occur all around us when it comes to moral and ideal obligations especially with technology under these circumstances. We need to find better ways to encrypt classified information on government servers while we condemn people who use similar technology to encrypt what can be considered personal private classified data on an equal scale and say they shouldn't be allowed it and we need a way to get around it which then compromises government data and round and round we go.
Also, this technology has been in Windows now since 2006, amazing how it has taken them so long to become concerned by it
Which is why them bringing this topic to the front of news should help the 'slow' perverts out there figure out how to do it.
Obscurity of some things does have a place, especially when you are trying to deter a group from noticing it.
(Hey everyone don't think about the White Elephant!!!)
Obviously banning children is the best route.
Obviously banning children is the best route.
Lol, I said, "Bad adults" above. Either or, one or the other banned will do it!!
Don't get me wrong, I'm dead against kiddie porn, but what's on someones hard drive is there business, and should have the right to encrypt whatever they want. I think it should be illegal for police even attempting to decode private data, and the coppers should get the chair. lol!!!!
That would be like saying that companaies that make guns, knives, other things that can kill people, sould be the ones responsable for murders.
If encryption should be able to be cracked, then ther'd be no point in even having it.
There are several things here...
1) Uncrackable - in theory no, practical use, yes.
2) Legality - prior to export law changes, even IE couldn't be 128bit for SSL, now Microsoft can set the encryption bit level of all products, even exported to Kangarooland.
So is NTFS Encryption uncrackable, NO.
Nothing probably ever will be, with except of a Quantam based system that only can decrypt based on a 'observational' behavior - meaning only the original 'viewer/conciousness' of the data could ever view it.
However, even NTFS encrption is fairly tight and sure the NSA could dedicate a few servers to getting it open, but the argument here is that local and small law officials couldn't. (Which is funny, as a BIOS password would probably keep these Bubba law officials out as well.)
Microsoft has no 'magical key'... This is actually a selling point for NTFS and Bitlocker, and why you will find employees from the FBI and NSA being required to use it, and able to buy and use Windows Notebooks, as long as it is locked.
Go look up Vista and Microsoft's demonstration to the FBI about bitlocking being used 'internally at the FBI' and why with no back door, it is something even security agencies can use off the shelf.
Thanks, but actually the vast majority of us cringe every time some moron from the government open their mouth.
rotfl
I hate when the mainstream media try's to report on tech. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing in the hands of those eager to please sensationalist sub editors...
Because we all know that anybody who owns a Windows machine is a pervert or a criminal. I am typing this message from my prison cell. DAMN YOU WINDOWS 7! DAMN YOU!!!
This is misinformation at its finest, everyone.
not sure about Australia but in the states the encryption is not going to save you if a 3 letter organization get a hold of your drive It doesn't matter what type of encryption you have (ie: windows 7 or True Crypt) while we are on the subject not even "cleaners" will stop the data restoration ( gutman 32 pass)
If this is stopping law enforcement they need a better budget!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1. Export/ import controls
Export is regulated through the Defence and Strategic Goods List, last changed in June 1999 according to the December 1998 Wassenaar Arrangement. This includes the General Technology Note, exempting public-domain software from controls. Mass-market software is regulated according to the Wassenaar limits. There is a personal-use exemption (export is allowed for lawful permanent residents, provided they keep control of the crypto and make sure it is not transferred anywhere; a record must be kept for 3 years).
Before the 1999 implementation of Wassenaar, export regulations of December 1996 (see Cat 5.doc) were in accordance with the pre-December 1998 Wassenaar Arrangement, with the exception of the General Software Note. Written permission was needed for exporting cryptographic equipment designed to ensure the secrecy of communications or stored information. Public-domain or generally available crypto-software were included in the export controls (only public-domain "technology" (i.e. specific information necessary for the use of goods) was excluded).
Approval is also required for software that does not itself contain cryptography, but which has an interface specially designed for plugging in cryptography.
Crypto software transmitted electronically (e.g., over the Internet) was apparently not controlled. In mid-1998, the Defence Department became concerned that electronic exports were not covered by the controls, and to counter this, they have apparently threatened to use the Weapons of Mass Destruction Act. This in turn triggered a campaign by Electronic Frontiers Australia. After six months, the Defence Signals Directorate determined that no license was required for an online mirror of PGPi, provided that a warning is contained in the download page that the downloader may infringe Australian export rules if he does not have export approval; apparently, the burden of seeking a license is thus shifted to the downloader rather than the person who makes software available electronically.
Compare Nick Ellsmore's Cryptology for background on the Australian situation.
2. Domestic laws and regulations
On 27 September 2001, the Cybercrime Act, No. 161, 2001, was passed. Item 12 of the law inserts a section 3LA in the Crimes Act 1914, that requires release of encryption keys or decryption of encrypted data, upon a magistrate's order. The order may be granted if there are reasonable grounds for suspecting evidential material is held in or accessible from a computer, and the specified person is a suspect or (an employee of) the owner or lessee of the computer, who has relevant knowledge of the encryption. Failure to comply with the order is punishable with up to six months' imprisonment. The same power is granted in section 201A of the Customs Act 1901. The text of the Act is available at Scaleplus (search for "cybercrime act"
The Act is based on the Council of Europe's (then draft) Convention on Cybercrime.
See EFA's comments on the Act.
3. Developments to restrict cryptography
Earlier developments
There has been an apparently unfounded rumour in the mid-1990s that Australia was planning to restrict banks to Government Access to Keys.
At the OECD meeting of December 1995, Australia expressed little interest in the use of Trusted Third Parties for judicial access to keys. Instead, the paper of the delegation suggested to require suspects to decrypt in case of a warrant; this would require the rules against self-incrimination to be adapted.
A 1996 report by Gerard Walsh, Review of policy relating to encryption technologies, was barred from public release in February 1997 by the Attorney-General's Department. After a freedom of information request by Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA), it was released, and it is now available online at EFA. The main finding of the Review was that major legislative action was not advised at the time to safeguard national security and law-enforcement interests, although a range of minor legislative and other actions were indicated (such as the creation of an aggregate statute on intrusive investigative powers). The review did not recommend specific options for encryption legislation at the time. One action indicated was to consider establishing a further and more serious category of offence where encryption is used to obstruct government investigation into a criminal offence, and to consider creating a power to require production of crypto keys (or other recovery information). The review did not support mandatory key recovery at that stage.
Compare Nick Ellsmore's Cryptology for background on the Australian situation.
4. Developments favoring cryptography
Transmission of confidential government information (classified "confidential" or above) must be encrypted by an encryption system supplied by the Defence Signals Directorate available only to government agencies.
On 6 May 1998, the Minister for Finance and Administration officially launched the Gatekeeperproject, a strategy for the use of public-key technology within the Government.
Back to the Table of Contents
And no, it is not quite related with pedos but most likely with terrorism or other way to "protect the country".
1. Export/ import controls
Export is regulated through the Defence and Strategic Goods List, last changed in June 1999 according to the December 1998 Wassenaar Arrangement. This includes the General Technology Note, exempting public-domain software from controls. Mass-market software is regulated according to the Wassenaar limits. There is a personal-use exemption (export is allowed for lawful permanent residents, provided they keep control of the crypto and make sure it is not transferred anywhere; a record must be kept for 3 years).
Before the 1999 implementation of Wassenaar, export regulations of December 1996 (see Cat 5.doc) were in accordance with the pre-December 1998 Wassenaar Arrangement, with the exception of the General Software Note. Written permission was needed for exporting cryptographic equipment designed to ensure the secrecy of communications or stored information. Public-domain or generally available crypto-software were included in the export controls (only public-domain "technology" (i.e. specific information necessary for the use of goods) was excluded).
Approval is also required for software that does not itself contain cryptography, but which has an interface specially designed for plugging in cryptography.
Crypto software transmitted electronically (e.g., over the Internet) was apparently not controlled. In mid-1998, the Defence Department became concerned that electronic exports were not covered by the controls, and to counter this, they have apparently threatened to use the Weapons of Mass Destruction Act. This in turn triggered a campaign by Electronic Frontiers Australia. After six months, the Defence Signals Directorate determined that no license was required for an online mirror of PGPi, provided that a warning is contained in the download page that the downloader may infringe Australian export rules if he does not have export approval; apparently, the burden of seeking a license is thus shifted to the downloader rather than the person who makes software available electronically.
Compare Nick Ellsmore's Cryptology for background on the Australian situation.
2. Domestic laws and regulations
On 27 September 2001, the Cybercrime Act, No. 161, 2001, was passed. Item 12 of the law inserts a section 3LA in the Crimes Act 1914, that requires release of encryption keys or decryption of encrypted data, upon a magistrate's order. The order may be granted if there are reasonable grounds for suspecting evidential material is held in or accessible from a computer, and the specified person is a suspect or (an employee of) the owner or lessee of the computer, who has relevant knowledge of the encryption. Failure to comply with the order is punishable with up to six months' imprisonment. The same power is granted in section 201A of the Customs Act 1901. The text of the Act is available at Scaleplus (search for "cybercrime act"
The Act is based on the Council of Europe's (then draft) Convention on Cybercrime.
See EFA's comments on the Act.
3. Developments to restrict cryptography
Earlier developments
There has been an apparently unfounded rumour in the mid-1990s that Australia was planning to restrict banks to Government Access to Keys.
At the OECD meeting of December 1995, Australia expressed little interest in the use of Trusted Third Parties for judicial access to keys. Instead, the paper of the delegation suggested to require suspects to decrypt in case of a warrant; this would require the rules against self-incrimination to be adapted.
A 1996 report by Gerard Walsh, Review of policy relating to encryption technologies, was barred from public release in February 1997 by the Attorney-General's Department. After a freedom of information request by Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA), it was released, and it is now available online at EFA. The main finding of the Review was that major legislative action was not advised at the time to safeguard national security and law-enforcement interests, although a range of minor legislative and other actions were indicated (such as the creation of an aggregate statute on intrusive investigative powers). The review did not recommend specific options for encryption legislation at the time. One action indicated was to consider establishing a further and more serious category of offence where encryption is used to obstruct government investigation into a criminal offence, and to consider creating a power to require production of crypto keys (or other recovery information). The review did not support mandatory key recovery at that stage.
Compare Nick Ellsmore's Cryptology for background on the Australian situation.
4. Developments favoring cryptography
Transmission of confidential government information (classified "confidential" or above) must be encrypted by an encryption system supplied by the Defence Signals Directorate available only to government agencies.
On 6 May 1998, the Minister for Finance and Administration officially launched the Gatekeeperproject, a strategy for the use of public-key technology within the Government.
Back to the Table of Contents
And no, it is not quite related with pedos but most likely with terrorism or other way to "protect the country".
A lot of this has changed in many countries in the late 90s early 00s.
When these rules were in effect, this is why products like even Internet Explorer couldn't be sold or exported or used outside of the USA in the 128bit SSL mode, and had to use 32/48/64bit encyrption based on the country.
I imagine if Microsoft was 'keen' on the laws reguarding IE and export encryption, they probably have already dealt with these issues specifically with each country respectively.
Didn't have time to read this, but try:
http://download.microsoft.com/download/5/b...CPA064_WH06.ppt
It is a slideshow about bitlocker and also talks about how it meets export requirements. In fact just do a Bing/Google on: Bitlocker export encryption
You will find many articles from Microsoft of how it works, what levels it works and how it deals with export and other country rules restrictions.
Oh get a bleeping GRIP. Microsoft's isn't the first or only technology that can encrypt data. But let's point the finger at them and label Windows 7 as a pedophile's haven. Yeah, that's real grown up.
If we're going to play the blame game then we better get ISP's involved, any manufacturer that makes monitors, hard drives, keyboards, mice... How about the local hydro company for supplying power to the computer?
But really, why attack the root of the problem when we can scapegoat Microsoft for all the world's problems?
ppl can download truecrypt for free with any OS and hide their pron
are they just looking for attention
IM JOKING
1) This is emotional blackmail; they attempt to gain support by touching a subject concerning all parents. Is child porn the only concern? stolen personal info, credit cards, terrorism plans are all OK apparently as they are not in the news that much lately.
2) Microsoft offers to decrypt a hard drive if the authorities request it. The actual concern here is that they cannot illegally access hard drives.
All I see is manipulation and attempts to violate privacy and gain control.
GPG has 2048bit encryption as standard. Hardly simple to decrypt.
I agree it should be removed, thankfully in my line of work I don't get to see the horrible things the police do, I don't think I could interview a Pedo without holding back the feeling I just want to bash He/She's head in. I said she, because there are women who arealso Pedo's not as much as men, but there are cases of women being Pedo's as well.
On the encryption note, there are way more benefits than drawbacks to having an encryption system in place.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.