Sponsor's Message

Those in favour of these "big brother" activities will trot out the usual glib catch-phrases such as "there's nothing to fear if you've got nothing to hide"

But is that really true?

Let's take a sensible look at this whole business of online privacy...

First of all, it's rather unlikely that every single item of email and every online IRC, web-browsing or ftp session will be the subject of intense scrutiny by a white-shirted civil servant ensconced in the bowels of a high-security building somewhere in Wellington.

Not only is it impractical to have such a high level of monitoring, it's also unlikely to produce much in the way of useful results.

It is likely however, that individuals considered to be "high risk" may well have their online activities flagged for investigation.

Make a threat against a high-profile public figure (especially an MP), make positive comments about a terrorist group, or associate (even virtually) with the wrong people and I suspect the relevant authorities will find it easy to get the necessary authority to snoop on your online activities.

Readers Say (updated irregularly) Announcing Freenet... - Dominc Freenet not a universal... - GrahamT From Yesterday... AU 2 NZ plane security... - Dominc your jet engine part... - Nick suitcase goodiies overseas... - Christine Just maybe?... - Allister airports... - bede What's the problem?... - Michael Customs inspections... - Gregor Leonids... - Ian Have Your Say

Of course we should all be grateful that our enforcement agencies are taking full advantage of new technology to ensure that we, the public, are kept safe from the threat of terrorism and other nefarious activities.

But is the monitoring of people's online activities really going to provide valuable information?

Well maybe the really stupid terrorists or criminals will slip up -- but given the ease with which strong encryption can be obtained and used by anyone with a computer and modem, is it really likely that Johnny Terrorist will send plain-text messages to their partners in crime?

It would make sense therefore to consider all encrypted email or files to be potentially related to terrorism or criminal activities wouldn't it?

And therein lies a problem...

If I send you an email with its contents protected by strong encryption, will I automatically become a suspected terrorist or criminal?

After all -- what could I have to hide that would require encrypting?

So where do we draw the line?

Should, in these days of global terrorism, regulate encryption technology in the same way we regulate firearms and commercial explosives?

Should, as was mooted in the UK, anyone using strong encryption be required to provide the government with a decryption key "on demand" in order to prove that the contents of their communications are not a threat to the public good?

What do you think? What is a fair price for our online privacy?

In the 21st century, should our privacy be considered a right or a privilege?

Contacting Aardvark
As always, readers are invited to submit their comments on material covered in this column. If you'd like your comments published here then please be sure to use this form and select For Publication.

Other media organisations seeking more information or republication rights are also invited to contact me.

Just add a couple of lines of JavaScript to your pages and you can get a free summary of Aardvark's daily commentary -- automatically updated each and every week-day.

Aardvark also makes a summary of this daily column available via XML using the RSS format. More details can be found here.

Contact me if you decide to use either of these feeds and have any problems.

Linking Policy
Want to link to this site? Check out Aardvark's Linking Policy.

Did you tell someone else about Aardvark today? If not then do it now!