From: Brian Davis <bdavis@thepoint.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 95 20:52:45 PDT
To: Jim Gillogly <jim@acm.org>
Subject: Re: GAK/weak crypto rationale?
In-Reply-To: <199509122307.QAA02486@mycroft.rand.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.D-G.3.91.950912234153.4405C-100000@dg.thepoint.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Tue, 12 Sep 1995, Jim Gillogly wrote:

> 
> > Brian Davis <bdavis@thepoint.net> writes:
> > No question.  Many high profile public corruption, Mafia, and high-level...
> > ...In our district, we managed to convict almost 20 people...
> > Particularly effective were the court-approved video and audio tapes of...
> 
> > I don't doubt that wiretaps may sometimes be abused despite the 
> > incredibly onerous review process, but they have positive aspects, too.
> 
> In how many of these cases did you fail to get the necessary information
> because of encryption?  Has this proportion been changing over the years?

I wasn't personally involved in any of the cases, but I susupect the 
answer re encryption is zero.  There was the time the FBI agent failed to 
push the record button, however.

My response was to the wiretap correlation to career-making cases.  I 
don't believe encryption is widespread enough yet to be a serious problem 
in the Title III area.  It is a potential problem, though, as encryption 
(rightfully) spreads.  The question I am debating with myself, with all 
of your help, is what the policy "ought to be."

Even if I ultimately come down in my own mind on the Cypherpunks side of 
the line, understand that, as far as policy goes (and, hell, everything 
else for that matter), I'm a nobody.  But I try to make up my own mind 
about what is right.

EBD


> > 	Jim Gillogly
> 	Hevensday, 21 Halimath S.R. 1995, 23:06
> 

Not a lawyer on the Net, although I play one in real life.
**********************************************************
Flame way! I get treated worse in person every day!!