From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@imsi.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 95 11:11:38 PST
To: Michael Sattler <msattler@jungle.com>
Subject: Re: AT&T and VLSI Encryption device
In-Reply-To: <v03001108ab5431879c3e@[140.174.229.228]>
Message-ID: <9501311911.AA25266@snark.imsi.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Michael Sattler says:
> At 09:55 1/31/95, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> >Michael Sattler says:
> >>
> >> How does this device conform with the legislated requirement that it must
> >> deliver plaintext to the government upon court-approved demand?
> >
> >There is no such requirement.
> 
> I was under the impression that "the Communications Assistance for Law
> Enforcement Act requires equipment manufacturers and telecommunications
> carriers to develop network technologies that are readily wiretapped" (from
> Garfinkel's book).  Doesn't a "hardware encryption device for use in lots
> of communications devices, including cell phones, PDAs, etc." seem to fall
> into that category?

The manufacturers of switching equipment are supposed to make it easy
to get at individual conversations. Nothing in the act forces
customers to make the contents of the conversations comprehensable.

.pm