From: Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 95 07:58:25 PDT
To: Brian Davis <bdavis@thepoint.net>
Subject: Re: GAK
Message-ID: <199509121457.KAA28748@panix.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 09:25 PM 9/3/95 -0400, Brian Davis wrote:

>I, of course, know of the "dislike" of GAK here.  I am curious to know, 
>however, if the "dislike" is because government would have access under 
>any circumstances or if the primary worry is that government will cheat 
>and get access when most would agree that they shouldn't (either by the 
>judge "cheating" or a TLA stealing it).

Individuals will have their individual objections.  My objections are that I
don't like governments spending tax money that they don't absolutely have
to.  Their own survival is *not* a necessity.  I think controlling people's
speech is a waste of money.  Very few Common Law crimes (ie real crimes) are
dependent on wiretap evidence for solution.  Only phoney bureaucratic crimes
(the retail pharmaceutical trade, insider trading, gambling, conspiring to
overthrow the government, etc) need wiretaps. 

My second objection is the control of people's speech.  If I communicate
with someone, I want to communicate with *them*.  I don't want to
communicate with the Feds.  The Supremes have held that the right to speak
includes the right not to be forced to speak.  By implication, I would argue
that I have the right to choose my own channels of communication including
my intended audience (and this has been upheld by the Supremes in other
contexts).

If the Feds want to know what I've written or said (non-publicly) let them
subpoena me and I will be happy to tell them to go to hell.

If we can deploy technologies to protect our freedom to communicate the way
*we* choose to, then we have the right to do so.  Beyond rights, we have the
power to do so --- which is worth even more.

>In other words ... if it took agreement by a review board composed of 
>non-LEA members of this list, would the escrow be acceptable??

I don't think many of us would feel better if a private party had to approve
the invasion of our privacy.

DCF

"You can ignore all of the rest of bullshit.  All that you need to know
about an enemy is how many guns and men does he have and can they stand fire."