GOVERNMENTAL ACCESS TO ENCRYPTED INFORMATION

To What Extent and How to Achieve that Extent?

Hamid Turab Mirza

Department of Computer Engineering, College of Electrical and Mechanical Engineering

National University of Science and Technology, Rawalpindi, Pakistan

Keywords: Cryptography, Government Policies, Free Society.

Abstract: No body can deny the importance of encryption technology in today’s communications, with all the benefits

it has also posed some threats, due to which, governments and regulatory bodies have great concern about

encrypted information and have set out some policies and are still busy in regulating the wide spread use of

encryption technology. In an attempt to control the encryption technology to make the society safe from the

threats of terrorism and crime, governments have over shadowed the benefits of encryption technology for

the privacy, liberty of the citizens and economic growth of the nation. There has been a lot of opposition and

criticism on these policies, and society has objected to the demands of governments over encryption

technology, and have demanded balanced solutions that should take safety within the context of free society

and not otherwise.

1 INTRODUCTION

“Encryption is a process of turning normal text into

a series of letters and/or numbers which can only be

deciphered by someone who has the correct

password or key” Eden (2000:361). Mankind has

been using encryption since at least the time of

Pharaohs. It has been used for hiding messages and

important private information. Although for long

encryption has been associated with the military and

governments only, but today, ordinary citizens,

financial institutions, international businesses use

encryption on regular basis (Gaver, 2000).

In 1970’s when international financial Industry

became more automated, only then the importance

of encryption in business communication was

recognized, before that until recently this technology

was thought to be an exclusive domain of

governments (Barth and Smith, 1997). Today all

businesses use technology and have their sensitive

business information and trade secrets online and the

desire to keep it secret and safe from the prying eye

is quite natural. In today’s world encryption

technology is fundamental for the development of

global electronic commercial systems. Akdeniz and

Walker (2000) state that other than the industry

encryption is also serving the humanity,

organizations such as Amnesty International and

Human Rights Watch communicate with dissidents

all around the world with the help of encryption

technology.

2 WHY GOVERNMENTS WANT

ACCESS TO ENCRYPTED

INFORMATION?

As nations are becoming more and more dependent

on communication technologies the chances of the

exploitation of these technologies by the high-tech

criminals is a major threat to the public safety

(Walker et al, 2000). Since the beginning

governments have been interested in regulating

encryption technology for the two core reasons,

national security and law enforcement, military is

concerned with the first and police with the second

(Barth and Smith, 1997).

More specifically with the emergence of World

Wide Web (www), now people all over the world

can exchange information freely and easily

regardless of any boundaries; Hence the excesses of

the cyber space and the use of encryption technology

are viewed as threatening by the authorities and it is

felt that there is a need for regulation of this space

but one of the main problem faced by the regulatory

authorities is; that there is no overall ownership of

467

Turab Mirza H. (2008).

GOVERNMENTAL ACCESS TO ENCRYPTED INFORMATION - To What Extent and How to Achieve that Extent?.

In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies, pages 467-473

DOI: 10.5220/0001531604670473

 SciTePress

the internet, however it is not the case that currently

there are no laws and regulations in place or that no

future laws can be devised to govern the internet,

(Walker et al, 2000; Wall, 2001) emphasize that

even if it was ever a wild west frontier then it has

been tamed very quickly and by looking at the

number of users and complexity of the Internet

activity it is still remarkably ordered.

With the increase in use of strong encryption

technologies governments are feeling that they will

loose their control and will not be able to do the

surveillance as they were doing before. The remarks

that: “Encryption is here and it's going to grow very

rapidly. That is bad news for Sigint” (Signals

Intelligence) given by the head of staff of the US

House of Representatives Permanent Select

Committee on Intelligence, ex CIA officer John

Millis to CIA veterans give very clear indication of

the government fears (Cyber-Rights & Cyber-

Liberties, 2000).

Eden (2000) points out that, the fact that

encryption can also lead to help the criminals hide

their activities has raised a voice that cryptography

providers should deposit encryption keys with some

trusted third party, in this regard different

governments have adopted different policy

approaches in effort to contain the threats posed by

encryption. Barth and Smith (1997) state that,

encryption can be mainly controlled in three ways

that are import control, export control and use

control.

3 ENCRYPTION POLICIES OF

GOVERNMENTS

3.1 UK Policy

The UK government has been trying to formulate a

policy on encryption since 1994, but there had been

many policy twists and turns over the time, the core

reason behind this is the difference of views of the

two governments before and after the general

election May, 1997, EU and OECD policies also

played a role in the delays (Akdeniz and Walker,

2000).

Government has proposed Key recovery

encryption system, it provides a way to access the

plain text without going into the formal process of

encryption and decryption; in recent years many

encryption systems like key escrow, trusted third

party (TTP), exceptional access, data recovery and

key recovery have been introduced. Abelson et al

(1998) identifies that although each of these systems

has its own mechanism but overall all of them serve

the same purpose of assuring third party

(government) access to encrypted data.

In the beginning British Government was also

planning to implement the ‘key escrow’ the same

concept of depositing the key with trusted third

party. But due to strong opposition of the business

community, the Electronic Communication Act

2000 abandoned ‘key escrow’ in UK (Eden, 2000).

Also there was also a proposal about licensing of

Trusted Third Parties (TTP’s) who will be holding

the copies of all encryption keys to facilitate

recovery and verification (Akdeniz and Walker,

2000). The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act

(RIPA) allows law enforcement agencies that; they

can have access to the communication data for broad

range of purposes without even obtaining a court

order (Jayasekera, 2001).

Abelson et al (1998) states that although there

had been a lot of opposition of these policies and

proposals, but government justifies them that these

systems have associated benefits such as if some

user lost the key then it can be recovered through the

TTP, otherwise user faces the risk of loosing the

crucial data in case of normal strong encryption.

3.2 US Policy

Since the beginning U.S.A. has been on the forefront

of policy making on encryption technology, fighting

cyber crimes was one of the major issue mentioned

in President Clinton’s 1999 “State of the Union”

message, it also mentioned the need for the battle

over encryption and the need for the law

enforcement and intelligence agencies to retain

access to telecommunications with out the need for

slow and expensive decryption, Levi (2001) points

out that same is mentioned in the United Kingdom’s

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA)

2000.

Over the time U.S has reconsidered its policies,

according to The Center for Democracy and

Technology (2001), On January 14, 2000 the U.S.

government published new encryption export

regulations, which made it much easier for the

companies or the individuals in the U.S to widely

export strong encryption regardless of how strong

the encryption is. However the new rules do not

decontrol the encryption and still there are a lot of

concerns about privacy and free speech. There were

some very catchy rules in January 2000 regulation

rules like, encryption products can be exported to

any, but few nations on U.S. "Terrorist" list, where

WEBIST 2008 - International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies

468

as encryption products having less than 64-bits can

be exported freely.

In light of these relaxations Akdeniz and Walker

(2000) predicted that in future encryption software

will become a standard part of the common use

software’s, this idea has already been transformed

into reality as Microsoft Windows 2000 incorporates

128-bit encryption, specifically permitted by relaxed

US government regulations on encryption exports

announced in January 2000. Overall U.S

governments efforts to stop the wide spread use of

encryption technology both inside and outside U.S.

has been pretty successful, Schneier and Banisar

(1997) doubt that this success might be short lived.

3.3 Various National Policies

Other governments in the world are also considering

the laws and regulation about encryption technology,

but few have implemented it well where as others

have completely ignored this issue, French

Government took a dramatic turn away from

encryption controls when Prime Minister Lionel

Jospin announced on 19th January 1999 that France

was dropping its long held restrictions on use of

cryptography where as Irish government has already

rejected internal and export controls in June 1998,

Japan on the other hand is financing the research and

development of encryption technology (Barth and

Smith, 1997; Akdeniz and Walker, 2000). According

to EPIC’s report, Cryptography and Liberty 2000,

only Malaysia and Singapore have existing laws

mandating lawful access to encryption keys, similar

to the approach of UK’s RIP Act.

Other than these policies governments are also

involved in secret global surveillance. A report by

American Civil Liberties Union (2004), mentions

that there exist very powerful systems like

ECHELON and ENFOPOL that collect data in

several ways, whereas governments have not yet

accepted their existence.

4 WORLD VIEW: CONCERNS

ABOUT GOVERNMENTAL

ENCRYPTION POLICIES

The internet society is considered to be a free

society, where people can have freedom of

expression and speech regardless of all physical

boundaries and constraints, few of the core

principals of the Internet Society (ISOC) a non-

profit, non-governmental, international club of

Internet enthusiasts around which much of the

constitution has resolved are: Online free expression,

which is not restricted by other indirect means such

as exclusively restrictive governmental or private

control and free, use of encryption (Walker et al,

2000).

Since the beginning there had been a severe

opposition of the policies against cryptography, as it

is very much obvious that the common use of

encryption technology is very much necessary for

the preservation of human rights in the Information

Society but today many law enforcement and

Intelligence agencies are trying to redesign

communication networks to ensure the easy and

effective surveillance from their desktops, Schneier

and Banisar (1997) further say that these kinds of

proposals would be more suited for the old Soviet

Union then the free world.

Currently we are witnessing a governance system

and shadows of political impacts on these liberties,

especially governmental policies have been crucial

to control technologies such as cryptography, which

is an essential part of the e-commerce and other

kinds of security mechanism over the net. These

kinds of policies will have a major impact on the

development of e-commerce. Barth and Smith

(1997) share the same view that strict controls on

encryption technology will harm those industries

that stand to benefit from the booming demand of

information security, by looking at the

advancements in technology and the way global

market reacts to it, one can easily predict that

governmental controls which are ineffective today

will become irrelevant tomorrow and strong

encryption is going to be the core component of the

international infrastructure for electronic commerce

and keeping in view this fact that different

governments have different encryption policies, it is

very much clear that the economy of the specific

country with tight regulations will drastically suffer.

In the same way current UK government

specifications of the key recovery system, diverge

many ways from the needs of individual or

commercial encryption users, for example Demands

of Law enforcement to have a real time 24-hour-a-

day, 365-day-a-year access to plaintext, access to the

keys without the end-user knowledge or consent, the

efforts to implement key recovery system to the this

extent will slow down the development of the e-

commerce (Abelson et al, 1998), also the U.S clipper

proposal got immense opposition from public. A

Time/CNN poll of 1000 people, conducted in March

1999 found that 80% of people strongly opposed the

proposal when it was described to them. Another

GOVERNMENTAL ACCESS TO ENCRYPTED INFORMATION - To What Extent and How to Achieve that Extent?

469

electronic petition organized by the Computer

Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) that

was asking President Clinton to withdraw the

Clipper proposal gathered nearly 50,000 signatures,

including many of the world’s prominent computer

security and cryptography experts (Schneier and

Banisar, 1997).

These kinds of proposals have been highly

opposed both by the civil libertarians and the

industry, these policies are against the basic human

rights and are a direct attack on the privacy and civil

liberties, which are necessary for an open society in

an electronic age and privacy should not be taken as

secrecy (Silverman, 2000; Hughes, 2001), but today

governments have developed very very large

databases (VVLDB’s) and have become custodians

of information that can very much affect the lives of

individual citizens and there had been many cases of

misuse of these data banks, Martin (1998) sees this

kind of surveillance as a serious and growing social

issue and stresses that root of this problem is

unequal power, he also makes a point that all these

proposals like key escrow and trusted third parties

require the cooperation of the industry and citizens

and without their cooperation there is no way that

these proposals can be implemented.

Martin (1998) further states that surprising it

may seem surveillance depends on cooperation by

the person who is under observation. Hence there is

a need for spreading mass awareness among people

so that they can protect their privacy and liberties

while communicating in their daily life,

Zimmermann (1995) Creator of the most popular

and controversial encryption software PGP (Pretty

Good Privacy), sees advancements in this field as a

seed crystal for the growth of Crypto Revolution,

and terms it as new political movement for civil

liberties in the Information Age.

5 NEED FOR A BALANCED

APPROACH

Although it is the fact that with help to the secure

communication, encryption technology also presents

problems for the law-enforcement and nobody can

deny the fact that there are times when law agencies

need to get the private encryption keys, members of

law enforcement and intelligence agencies are very

right about their concerns about the usage of

unescrowed cryptography, but this need has to be

balanced against the rights of freedom to speech and

personal privacy (Akdeniz et al, 1997; Abelson et al,

1998) and there is also a a risk that the efforts of the

governments to implement a key recovery system

will increase the risk of crime and information

terrorism instead of decreasing it. The increase in

number of people having access to this central key

repository will maximize the chances of corruption

even if it’s by a mistake.

Abelson et al (1998) further emphasize that a

huge network linking number of law enforcement

agencies with different key recovery centers,

requires extraordinary level of human

trustworthiness hence will be difficult to secure and

will be much more vulnerable to attackers. Looking

at the complex nature of the problem and the

difference in policies of the governments, due to the

lack of balance between security and liberty,

countries such as Sweden, Germany and United

States have been called as surveillance societies but

on the other hand many governments notably in

Scandinavian countries consider it as a tool and

don’t control it, same is the case with developing

countries. Barth and Smith (1997) express their fears

that, these countries are safe heavens for cyber

criminals, free from any regulation and are threats to

the whole international effort of containing the

spread of strong encryption, so in the light of these

facts it is predicted that internationally accepted

encryption standards will merge together and

eventually will sidestep the government control on

export, import and use of encryption technology.

This way together these developments will doom the

efforts of individual governments to prevent the

secure communication both locally and

internationally.

Looking at the problems with these proposals

Schneier and Banisar (1997) predicted that

ultimately these proposals will not be as effective as

the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and

National Security Agency (NSA) assert because

most criminals will simply adopt more secure

alternatives, Barth and Smith (1997) share the same

view that, as the cost of computing power goes

down, demand for the strong encryption will

definitely increase, ironically the main affect of the

government policy might be an increase in crime.

On the other hand it is also argued that

encryption technology is not that big threat and

governments are just using it as a tool to increase

and justify their surveillance powers, according to a

Townsend & Taphouse (1998) it has been noticed

that respected people from U.S. Government are

giving some misleading statements about

encryption, according to them cracking DES (Data

Encryption Standard) is much more difficult and

WEBIST 2008 - International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies

470

thousands of computers will take weeks and years to

crack a single message. Where as according to

cryptography research community 40-bit RC-4

encryption can be and has been broken by a group of

students. Even the security of 56-bit DES is in

doubt; a private sector report claims that a computer

system costing $ 10 million can break any DES

encryption in six minutes (Barth and Smith, 1997).

So there is a severe need to have a balance

between the policies as security expert Bruce

Schneier said in his interview to Barrett (2004) a

News Week reporter, that he sees the need to have a

more balanced approach toward security, as it is just

one of the goal of the country, and further said that if

we lock every person in the country then it will be

very secure but unfortunately that wouldn’t be a

better society.

6 COMPROMISED PROPOSALS:

HOW TO ACHIEVE THE

RIGHT EXTENT OF ACCESS

There had been a lot of discussions on the need for

surveillance and the control of encryption, many

proposals by different governments have been

presented but all of them are mostly on one extreme

that is stress on national security and law

enforcement, that reason being that these proposals

are not accepted widely is, these proposals do not

take into account the privacy, freedom of speeches

and liberties of a net citizens.

According to Martin (1998) surveillance is not a

new problem, but invasion of privacy by large

remote organizations is quite new. Encryption is just

a technical solution to anti surveillance but he

emphasizes that unless the society accepts it,

technical solutions are of no use. The awareness

about the privacy is constantly on the rise and people

have high concerns about the privacy of their data

over the networks, (France, 1998) suggests that data

protection supervisory should be developed to play a

role in providing those safeguards, which common

citizen is entitled to under the Data Protection Act

(DPA) 1984. This fact has been recognized by the

authorities and they have agreed that trust worthy

providers of the cryptography are very much

important for the growth of the e-commerce, and

that commercial organizational information must be

saved against both commercial and state sponsored

surveillance (Barth and Smith, 1997; Eden, 2000).

Akdeniz and Walker (2000) point out that the

major problem faced here is that who can be trusted?

to build the trust in information age, a Regulatory

framework must be established at a national,

supranational and international level. The fact that

there is a considerable difference between EU and

US policies, and even the conflict of policies in

between EU members like UK and France is

alarming. The absence of consensus hampers not

only the growth of e-commerce but also diminishes

the dream of netizens to have a stable and

trustworthy environment in cyberspace.

On the other hand Martin (1998) proposed an

extremist solution for eliminating the surveillance,

he suggests if there is a need for surveillance of a

nuclear reactor than the solution is to abolish the

reactor, further he adds that organizations such as

FBI, MI5 and KGB should seize to exist, as spy

agencies have probably done more to promote than

to prevent terrorism.

Abelson et al (1998) observed that in spite of all

the efforts and research still neither industry nor

government has been yet able to produce a key

recovery system that satisfies all requirements. Barth

and Smith (1997) also support the view that there are

a lot of loopholes in policies and only prospect for

effective governance is a tightly coordinated

international policy coupled with national

enforcement, it is further emphasized that

governments will have to take some concrete

decisions very quickly, by looking at the rapid

advancements in the area of cryptology any effort of

policy making at international level might be too

late. In this regard many scholars and renowned

security and social liberty experts have proposed

some solutions which can be termed as

compromised solutions which take both security and

social liberty into account.

It is pointed out by Akdeniz et al (1997) that

crime prevention is one requirement and it should be

considered with in the context of the encryption

debate and should not over shadow it. They suggest

a compromised proposal to avoid the both extremes

in encryption policy and the breach of privacy by the

governments. They propose a solution of ‘Key

Archiving’, which recommends that citizens and

organizations to archive the keys with themselves,

the archive copy will only be recoverable from

trusted third parties (TTP) when the key has been

invalidated against all subsequent use. Most

importantly in this solution user will always know

that the key has been compromised or revealed to

the authorities, this might help to avoid the misuse

of keys from those who do not have the proper

authority.

Akdeniz and Walker (2000) favored a ‘zero

option’, which suggests that governments should

GOVERNMENTAL ACCESS TO ENCRYPTED INFORMATION - To What Extent and How to Achieve that Extent?

471

adopt alternative approaches to policing, as

criminals cannot be completely prevented from

having an access to strong encryption and bypassing

the escrowed encryption, on the other hand extreme

policies will have drastic affect on the

developmental policies of the government to make

Britain a liberal society, a favorable location for e-

commerce and network development.

7 CONCLUSIONS

In this Information Age no one can deny the benefits

and importance of encryption, due to advancements

in technology the way people communicate has

changed and it is necessary that this communication

should be secure, encryption technology is used for

the same purpose. Today business and citizens

highly rely on the encryption technology for the

reliable communications, but with all the benefits

encryption has also posed the threats, fears that

criminals can also use the same technology for

carrying out their crime and it could be to the extent

of national security. Due to these threats

governments have shown their concerns and are

busy in developing policies and regulations to

control the wide spread of strong encryption, so that

they can intercept any communication when ever

they want to. For this reason different governments

have passed different regulations, these regulations

allow enforcement agencies to access or intercept

any communication or data. Apparently the reason

behind this is national security and law enforcement

for the public safety.

These regulations and proposals have a lot of

problems and loop holes, which have been highly

criticized by many societies. According to those

regulations every body using the strong encryption

software should submit his keys to some trusted

third party from which government or law

enforcement agencies could get the key and access

the private or confidential information without the

knowledge of the owner of that information or data.

This is clearly against the liberty and privacy rights

of the citizens, and will make the whole

communication system insecure for commercial

business in specific and private users in general.

Society has reacted to these demands of

governments to have access to private, confidential

information to this extent. It has been argued that

these policies are only taking in account the national

security and demands of law enforcement agencies

and are overshadowing the basic concept of liberal

and free society. Hence it is demanded that there

must be some balanced approach to this issue, which

is acceptable for the citizens, industry and

governments.

REFERENCES

American Civil Liberties Union. (2004). “Echelon

Watch”. American Civil Liberties Union. [Online].

New York: ACLU, American Civil Liberties Union.

http://archive.aclu.org/echelonwatch/faq.html

Akdeniz, Y. and Walker, C. (2000). “Whisper who dares:

encryption, privacy rights and the new world

disorder”. In: Akdeniz, Y., Walker, C. and Wall, D.

(ed.), The Internet, Law and Society, pp. 317-348.

Longman, 2000.

Abelson, H., Anderson, R., Bellovin, Steven M., Benaloh,

J., Blaze, M., Diffie, W., Gilmore, J., Neumann, Peter

G., Rivest, Ronald L., Schiller, Jeffrey I. & Schneier,

B. (1998). “The Risks Of ‘Key Recovery,’ ‘Key

Escrow,’ And ‘Trusted Third-Party’ Encryption”.

Center for Democracy and Technology. [Online].

Washington : Center for Democracy and Technology.

http://www.cdt.org/crypto/risks98/.

Akdeniz, Y., Clarke, O., Kelman, A., Oram, A. (1997).

“Cryptography and Liberty: ‘Can the Trusted Third

Parties be Trusted ? A Critique of the Recent UK

Proposals’”. The Journal of Information, Law and

Technology (JILT). [Online]. The Journal of

Information, Law and Technology (JILT) 1997 (2).

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/1997_2

/akdeniz/.

Barrett, J. (2004). “An Enormous Waste of Money, A

security expert argues that America is spending its

money ineffectively in the fight against terrorism”.

Newsweek, Inc. [Online]. MSNBC: 2004 Newsweek,

Inc. 17 March 2004. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/

4549661/

Barth, Richard C. and Smith, Clint N. (1997).

“International Regulation of Encryption: Technology

Will Drive Policy”. In: Kahin, B. and Nesson, C. (ed.),

Borders in Cyberspace: Information Policy and the

Global Information Infrastructure, pp. 283-299. The

MIT Press, 1997.

Cyber-Rights & Cyber-Liberties. (2000). “Interception

Capabilities 2000, Report to the Director General for

Research of the European Parliament (Scientific and

Technical Options Assessment programme office) on

the development of surveillance technology and risk of

abuse of economic information Regulations”. Cyber-

Rights & Cyber-Liberties. [Online]. Leeds: Cyber-

Rights & Cyber-Liberties. http://www.cyber-

rights.org/interception/stoa/ic2kreport.htm#Summary.

Eden, P. (2000). “Electronic commerce – law and policy”.

In: Akdeniz, Y., Walker, C. and Wall, D. (ed.), The

Internet, Law and Society, pp. 349-369. Longman,

2000.

France, Elizabeth. (1998). “Privacy and Openness: Data

Protection, Privacy and Confidentiality”. In:

WEBIST 2008 - International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies

472

McDonald, A. and Terrill, G. (ed.), Open Government,

Freedom of Information and Privacy, pp. 45-66.

London: Macmillan, 1998.

Gaver, J. (2000). “Encryption: Why You Should Use it,

Why the Feds Want it Stopped”. Action America.

[Online]. Action America: Uncommon Insight into

Common Issues. 10 October 1999. http://

www.actionamerica.org/privacy/encrypt.html.

Hughes, Eric. (2001). “A Cypherpunk’s Manifesto”. In:

Schneier, B. & Banisar, D. (ed.). The Electronic

Privacy Papers, Documents on the Battle for Privacy

in the Age of Surveillance, pp. 285-287. John Wiley &

Sons, 1997.

Jayasekera, R. (2001). “Internet: Mass surveillance, Bug

them all and let Echelon sort them out”. Index on

Censorship. [Online]. Index on Censorship: for free

expression. 8 November 2001. http://

www.indexonline.org/news/20011108_europe.shtml.

Levi, M. (2001). “Between the risk and the reality falls the

shadow, Evidence and urban legends in computer

fraud (with apologies to T.S. Eliot)”. In: Wall, David

S. (ed.), Crime and the Internet, pp. 44-58. London:

Routledge, 2001.

Martin, B. (1998). Information Liberation, Challenging the

corruptions of information power. London: Freedom

Press, 1998.

Silverman, Debra L. (2000). “Freedom of Information:

Will Blair be Able to Break the Walls of Secrecy in

Britain?”. In: Vaughn, Robert G. (ed.), Freedom of

Information, The International Library of Essays in

Law & Legal Theory, Second Series, pp. 351-433.

Ashgate Pub Co, 2000.

Schneier, B. and Banisar, D. (1997). The Electronic

Privacy Papers, Documents on the Battle for Privacy

in the Age of Surveillance. John Wiley & Sons, 1997.

The Center for Democracy and Technology. (2001). “U.S.

Encryption Policy, Current Encryption Export

Regulations”. Center for Democracy and Technology.

[Online]. Washington : Center for Democracy and

Technology. http://www.cdt.org/crypto/admin/.

Townsend & Taphouse. (1998). Politics of Decryption,

TECS, Intelligence Papers, Cracking DES [Online].

Townsend & Taphouse. http://www.itsecurity.com/

papers/crackdes2.htm.

Wall, D. (2001). “Maintaining order and law on the

Internet”. In: Wall, David S. (ed.), Crime and the

Internet, pp. 167-183. London: Routledge, 2001.

Walker, C., Wall, D. and Akdeniz, Y. (2000). “The

Internet, law and society”. In: Akdeniz, Y., Walker, C.

and Wall, D. (ed.), The Internet, Law and Society, pp.

3-24. Longman, 2000.

Zimmermann, Philip R. (1995). The Offical PGP User’s

Guide. The MIT Press, 1995.

GOVERNMENTAL ACCESS TO ENCRYPTED INFORMATION - To What Extent and How to Achieve that Extent?

473