* Readers weigh in on VoIP encryption and privacy issues
In a recent article concerning VoIP and encryption, we raised the issue of whether we possibly had too much readily available encryption. The rationale was that encryption makes lawful and appropriate monitoring of traffic for national security and law enforcement much more difficult than it should be.
This generated lots of feedback, and it did not seem that our readers were too sympathetic to these lawful intercepts. (We did not hear from anyone in law enforcement.) Some of the responses, which we’ll happily share without comment, are included below.
One reader wrote, “I simply do not trust the U.S. government with unrestrained snooping (as in Patriot Act) no more than I trust anyone else!”
Another expressed the sentiment with a little more elaboration:
“Not being a big fan of the Patriot Act and more than a little worried about Big Brother I would say that encryption is a good thing and should not be discouraged. Phone calls have the ‘expectation of privacy’ and encryption only serves to make that expectation happen. If the CIA wants to get my audio stream they will, encrypted or not. However, encryption will keep it secure from some kid in a co-lo with Ethereal and too much time on his hands.”
A third reader responded:
“As far as encryption preventing national security and law enforcement, I believe most of the U.S.-based vendors need to comply with regulation on how to allow law enforcement agencies to monitor calls. But then again, if as you mentioned in the article the users are using IPSec or SSL end-to-end, you have to handle a ‘non-compliant’ environment anyway.”
A fourth reader said:
“In the U.S., the home of the world’s biggest supercomputers, where the authorities are paranoid about the ability to prevent their citizens (and any non-citizen, i.e. the rest of the world’s people) having any privacy at all, I cannot believe that there is no way for lawful organizations to de-crypt intercepted traffic. It will be expensive. It will be awkward. But I firmly believe that it should be hard for government to intrude upon the privacy of an individual. There should be hurdles placed in the way, i.e. due legal process, and such monitoring should not be undertaken lightly. This is a fundamental issue based upon the freedom of the individual, the right to free speech and the pursuit of liberty.”
Clearly, this is an area where we will not reach consensus soon.
