From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@access.digex.net>
To: Jamie Lawrence <jamiel@sybase.com>
Message Hash: ce1cc203d64e4c67b49706e7a4dc520626234cc0d9bb687ace14a87545946ec4
Message ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.941121182048.27459A-100000@access1.digex.net>
Reply To: <aaf6b9925b021004d4c3@[130.214.233.9]>
UTC Datetime: 1994-11-21 23:49:42 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 21 Nov 94 15:49:42 PST
From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@access.digex.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 94 15:49:42 PST
To: Jamie Lawrence <jamiel@sybase.com>
Subject: Re: Admiral Inman
In-Reply-To: <aaf6b9925b021004d4c3@[130.214.233.9]>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.941121182048.27459A-100000@access1.digex.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
On Mon, 21 Nov 1994, Jamie Lawrence wrote:
> >replied that the governmental concern about wiretaps was and is primarily
> >and unambiguously about narcotics.
>
> and
>
> >Back to Narcotics. He gave the statistic that 90% of the narcotics leads
> >related to money laundering come from domestic wiretaps.
>
> Wow, this is easy then: legalize drugs and wiretaps are practically
> unessessary. Buy a copy of High Times today! ;)
Unfortunately this first bit is typical of the "Four Horseman"
demonization. The fault here is a logic flaw called "After the fact,
therefore because of the fact." In this case the reason that all the
narcotics leads related to money laundering come from wiretaps is because
this is the only method applied to obtaining such leads on a serious basis.
I have long argued that the entire emphasis on the importance of
wiretaps, and all the statistics associated with these arguments fail
this basic test. Next time you hear someone touting the importance of
wiretaps because X million dollars is saved by the criminals caught with
wiretaps, ask "Why weren't normal physical/intrusive devices used?"
One of the requirements in most showing requirements for the approval of
wiretaps requires an agent to assert that a phone wiretap is the only way to
obtain the needed information. Of course this has become a joke.
The other issue, perhaps the real issue, is that wiretaps have more limited
4th amendment protections than do physical/intrusive devices.
I think you'd solve a lot of problems by admitting that the crucial need for
wiretapping ability is a farce and grew out of attempts to circumvent the
4th amendment in the then budding war on drugs. I expect any day to be
told of the "wiretap" crisis, and following in the "crisis" political
pattern (Declare a crisis, yank rights and replace them with
entitlements) go back to a system where you have to lease your government
subsidized (read bugged) phone equipment.
Crypto hook in? Given the increased reliance on communications what has
been the respective addition in protection for electronic communication
privacy? None. If anything there is the opposite. If I'm wrong, I'd love
to be corrected.
So now that Crypto threatens the end run on the 4th amendment, government
cries bloody murder. God forbid the citizenry might be allowed to
protect themselves from 4th amendment circumvention. This is raised to
the point of lunacy when one considers the rationale behind limited 4th
amendment protections for telephone conversations, and the almost absent
protection for call setup information.
The rationale is essentially this: One must exert a manafest expectation
of privacy to claim protection under the 4th amendment. Conveying the
information to a third party, or any set of parties other than the
recipiant, demonstrates a lack of manafest expectation of privacy. In the
case of call setup information, you convey, intentionally, call setup
information to the phone company, and thus cannot expect it to remain
private.
Now, when cryptography changes this balance, and essentially eliminates
cleanly the entire rationale behind allowing wiretaps their favorable
status outside active 4th amendment protection, we ban cryptography, or
limit it so severely as to put it within the same "convey the information
to a third party" analysis. (Clipper, where you "convey" your key to an
escrow agent.) SURPRISE, you have no expectation of privacy in that
information. No 4th amendment protection.
Does any of this even strike you as odd in today's world however?
I didn't think so.
Wow, all that from a few lines of original text? (Oh well).
-uni- (Dark)
073BB885A786F666 nemo repente fuit turpissimus - potestas scientiae in usu est
6E6D4506F6EDBC17 quaere verum ad infinitum, loquitur sub rosa - wichtig!
Return to November 1994
Return to “lethin@ai.mit.edu (Rich Lethin)”