On 29 December Talking Point asked you, as users of the Web, "Should government's control Internet encryption". We had 202 submissions to Talking Point, and analyse your views below.

The policing of activities on the Internet has moved closer to becoming a reality.

On 29 December the British Home Secretary Jack Straw announced proposals to give police and intelligence agencies Europe-wide powers to intercept secret messages sent on the Internet by criminals.

The proposals for Europe reflect growing concerns about the use of the Internet by organised crime rings.

However, any moves to give the authorities the power to intercept private Internet messages could prove highly controversial with civil liberties groups.

Global agreement

Responents gave us a global view of the issue including emails from The Netherlands, Brazil, France, the USA, South Korea, Japan, Belgium, Denmark and the UK.

A massive 80% of the opinion we received was totally against the policing of the Net. The feelings of John Verbeeten of Canada were characteristic of the majority view:

"In what is becoming an increasingly regulated, complicated & conformist society the Internet finally offers the opportunity to return some basic & fundamental freedoms to ordinary citizens - don't give it up !"

Many correspondents drew on the Internet's history, saying 'The Internet grew up and flourished as the bastion of free speech. Its unspoken 'anything goes' etiquette is the key to its success. To control it is therefore to destroy it'.

Another facet to the idea of freedom was illustrated in emails decrying the further invasion of the individual's privacy.

"Electronic databases mean our lives are already too easily scrutinised...Data is power and the government, especially a Labour government should protect personal privacy," said Sean Pert of the UK and echoed by a further 45% of those against the proposals.

Crackdown just a cover-up

The arguments against control of the Internet were however not all on predictable lines. Some interesting angles on the argument were proffered: "If criminals wish to use encryption, they will use the strongest encryption available to them, a locked door will only keep out an honest man." stated Geoff McHugh of Northern Ireland.

Another stance was that this was just a government whitewash. Some said that such measures effectively do nothing to tackle crime. They serve only to waste public money on an outwardly impressive but, in reality, futile scheme.

"He should spend the money tracking down the criminals at source instead of, yet again, banding all people who use the Internet as criminals!" said M Callaway of the UK.

The point was continued elsewhere that if enforced, the proposals would also threaten the growth of online commerce which relies heavily on the use of encryption to protect private financial details.

Unity of belief

Not many correspondents supported Home Secretary Jack Straw. About 10% agreed with the proposals. But interestingly, those who did also offered a belief in freedom of speech as an argument.

"We should protect in every possible way our basic freedom of opinion. For that reason, I think the Net should be watched because it is used against those same freedoms..... No doubt about it, they (criminals) will find a way to turn the Net into a dangerous virus" said Nahum Sirotsk of Brazil .

The rest of you tended to sit on the fence. The standpoint taken was that such controls were futile against the ingenuity of internet technology and those with the knowhow to manipulate it.

The conclusion? To summarise all these opinions: the growth, success and the survival of the Internet is fundamentally a story of unique freedom of speech. To seek to control the internet is to misunderstand and misuse it.

Back to top | BBC News Home | BBC Homepage	©