[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Legality of *non*-encryption
- To: [email protected]
- Subject: Legality of *non*-encryption
- From: "Sparkes, Ian, ZFRD AC" <[email protected]>
- Date: 11 Feb 1998 14:15:16 +0100
- Alternate-Recipient: Prohibited
- Conversion: Allowed
- Disclose-Recipients: Allowed
- Original-Encoded-Information-Types: IA5-Text
- Sender: [email protected]
- X400-Content-Type: P2-1988 ( 22 )
- X400-Mts-Identifier: [/c=de/admd=dbp/prmd=telekom400/; 1831134e1a46483Q9FMX017]
- X400-Originator: [email protected]
- X400-Received: by mta Q8PMX900 in /c=DE/admd=dbp/prmd=telekom400/; converted ( IA5-Text); Relayed; 11 Feb 1998 14:53:49 +0100
- X400-Received: by mta Q9FMX004 in /c=DE/admd=dbp/prmd=telekom400/; Relayed; 11 Feb 1998 14:53:48 +0100
- X400-Received: by mta Q9FMX017 in /c=DE/admd=dbp/prmd=telekom400/; Relayed; 11 Feb 1998 14:15:16 +0100
- X400-Received: by /c=de/admd=dbp/prmd=telekom400/; converted ( IA5-Text); Relayed; 11 Feb 1998 14:15:16 +0100
- X400-Recipients: [email protected]
I heard an interesting new slant on the legality of
encryption today.
I was talking to a colleague who is employed in a law firm
here in Germany. It appears that under the current
interpretation of German law, communications of a
confidential nature (for example, contracts, medical
records and so forth) over an insecure network *MUST* be
encrypted to protect the Client. It is therefore a breach
of German law to send unencypted eMail, unless it can be
proved that every stage of the transmission happens over
internal (secure?) paths.
I will dig further on this - perhaps there is a useful
precedent to be established here. At very least we might be
able to keep lawers (and doctors) off the net ;-)