From: "Ian S. Nelson" <ian@bvsd.k12.co.us>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 95 10:27:17 PDT
To: Andrew.Spring@ping.be (Andrew Spring)
Subject: Re: GAK/weak crypto rationale?
In-Reply-To: <v01510100ac7a4e673a66@[193.74.217.13]>
Message-ID: <199509121726.LAA27609@bvsd.k12.co.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


> 
> >intercepts requested and authorized in the past year.  As I recall, the
> >number was quite small - around 12K [?].  Someone had found this out
> >through an FOIA request, perhaps, (my recollection of it is poor). It was
> 
> I think it's about 1200.
> 
> >not a large number, anyway.  I must conclude that the actual number of
> >intercepts is much, much larger than they are saying, and that they must
> >be getting what they perceive to be good intel from all this snooping.
> >
> 
> A more cautious conclusion would be would be that the importance (to the
> LEA's) of the busts made with crypto is much larger than the numbers
> suggest.  You could interpret that a lot of ways:  I suspect that
> high-profile career-enhancing cases are highly dependent on wiretaps.

It could also be argued that the number of busts and wire taps will go up 
dramatically as more and more people begin to use communications in more 
integrated ways with thier life and career.  It is kind of a fallacy, but
communications does seem to be a rapidly growing market.  I imagine the folks
who push for that sort of crap are thinking of the future, else we'd already 
have it.