From: bsteve@zontar.attmail.com (Steve Blasingame)
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 94 18:30:20 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Newsday Editorial
Message-ID: <9402270133.AA19290@zontar.attmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Dorothy:

We have not been formally introduced. My name is Steve Blasingame. I am a
long-time proponent of quality encryption systems for both private and
commercial communications. I am also a long-time employee of The AT&T
Company responsible for AT&T-GIS strategies, programs and products
in internetworking. I am very pleased that AT&T is manufacturing the
"Clipper Phone" product and believe that "Clipper" is an enabling
technology for government and business. However, I must challenge the
basis of your "Newsday" editorial as false.

>"   The Clinton administration has adopted the chip, which would allow
>law enforcement agencies with court warrants to read the Clipper codes
>and eavesdrop on terrorists and criminals."

It would be great if this were true, but it is false. Criminals and
terrorists operate outside the confines of the law and are not obliged
to use encryption schemes sanctioned by statute.

>"  But opponents say that, if
>this happens, the privacy of law-abiding individuals will be a risk.
>They want people to be able to use their own scramblers, which the
>government would not be able to decode."

Given that criminals would not be obliged to use the statutory method
of encryption, what other purpose could be served by such a technology
enforced by law?

"   If the opponents get their way, however, all communications on the
information highway would be immune from lawful interception."

It is clear that the security of communications on the information
highway is an important issue. However, as a corporate citizen, I
am more concerned about the un-lawful monitoring of communications and
do not consider that there is a sufficiently robust encryption technology
to make a statutory encryption standard workable for more than a few years.

>"  But then who would have
>thought that the World Trade Center bombers would have been stupid
>enough to return a truck that they had rented?"

I think that this qualifies as an appeal to ignorance. "Can you prove
it isn't true?"

>"...  Lawlessness would prevail."

If you examine definition 3 from the latest edition of the "American
Heritage Dictionary" in your study, you will find that "Lawless" means
"not governed by law." This is certainly a law that we can all do without.

  Very truly yours,

    Steve Blasingame
    bsteve@zontar.com