Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : JAWS Technologies - NASDAQ (NM):JAWZ -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Forest Gump who wrote (202)	4/17/1998 12:13:00 PM
From: saltbox	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3086

Hi,Forest. Glad to have you here. I've been reading your posts on the DGIV thread. I hope JAWZ will have the same kind of excitement soon. It seems it isn't the "government" attempting to keep encryption under control, rather, select and influential agencies within the government(s) like the FBI and NSA who, in the words of the Global Internet Liberty Campaign, have "hijacked the encryption issue for their own benefits". The frustrating thing, Forest, is that, yes, everyone seems to agree that their reasons are bunk, but everyone seems to be powerless to stop them. And you're certainly right stating that if someone wants to do something illegal, they'll find a way, law or no law. And, regarding encryption "keys": Doesn't any agency need a Court Order before they can tap someone's phone, or open someone's mail? I mean, they can't just do anything they damn well please, can they? So why shouldn't the same rules apply to encrypted cell phones and Internet message traffic? If the FBI, or any agency, has "reason to suspect...", let them convince a Judge to issue a Court Order. With one major difference: Let's assume the FBI doesn't have a "key" because encrypted phone calls and Internet messages are "untouchable". The Court Order will be issued to (for example) examine bank records, phone company records, etc.etc. If there is, indeed, "reason to suspect", examination of those sources should be sufficient to confirm or disprove those suspicions while, at the same time, protecting everyone's cell phone and Internet privacy. But if that fails, and the U.S. becomes one of the FEW countries to insist on weak encryption, could an illegal traffic in high-encryption software develop, with JAWZ producing in foreign countries, and their software being unknowingly smuggled in? Like Cuban cigars? Maybe I'm blowing this whole thing out of proportion but, if so, I hope CHRIS, or anyone, can enlighten us on how this issue will, or will not, affect JAWZ.