From: Bill Stewart <stewarts@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 95 19:00:28 PDT
To: Brian Davis <bdavis@thepoint.net>
Subject: Re: GAK/weak crypto rationale?
Message-ID: <199509140159.SAA16862@ix3.ix.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 11:46 PM 9/12/95 -0400, Brian Davis wrote:

>> > 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 suspect 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.  

You're probably right.  On the other hand, especially as dealers in
politically incorrect substances get better privacy technology,
this will become much more of an issue, and I get the impression from
what I read in the papers that big drug busts, arrests of major
organized crime figures, and the rare terrorist cases are probably
big career wins for the police agents and prosecutors involved.

>The question I am debating with myself, with all 
>of your help, is what the policy "ought to be."

As you might guess, I think the government makes lots of laws about
things that are not their business, and wiretaps and other privacy
invasions are especially useful for prosecuting victimless crimes and 
dissident political groups, since none of the participants call the cops.
On the other hand, I've had friends whose businesses have been burned 
down by the Mafia, and don't like murderers bombing pubs, either,
and stopping people like that is legitimate police business.

However, I think the moral case is very clear that people have the
right to communicate freely and privately, and to use whatever
technology or languages they want to to attempt to do so;
any government that would try to prevent that is more of a threat
to freedom than a benefit.  And police have had a lot of success with
informants, and new technology has really improved equipment for
bugging suspects- if you folks do your jobs honestly and apologize
when you make mistakes about invading incorrect suspects' privacy,
go ahead and use it.

The really gray areas are things like widespread coordinated
surveillance of public activities - cameras in the subways, etc.
#---
# Bill Stewart, Freelance Information Architect, stewarts@ix.netcom.com
# Phone +1-510-247-0664 Pager/Voicemail 1-408-787-1281
#---