From: rschlafly@attmail.com (Roger  Schlafly)
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 10:24:50 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Clipper
Message-ID: <rschlafly0302322520>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



>> One of the interesting things about the whole crypto debate, going back at
>> least to the Clipper announcement (and actually some months before) has
>> been that the pro-restrictions, pro-GAK side of the argument has almost no
>> defenders! Except for David Sternlight, Dorothy Denning, and Donn Parker
>> ("attack of the killer Ds"?), there are almost no public spokesmen for the
>> pro-restriction, pro-GAK side.

>> There's quite a few folks in the Yale CS department that are pro-Clipper
>> or fence sitters.  They justify it in class by claiming that law
>> enforcement needs these abilities if LE is to remain effective. 

I don't think "pro-Clipper" properly characters the enemy.

Clipper is chip used in a voluntary federal standard.  If we had
sufficient civil liberties guarantees, I bet even a lot of
c'punks wouldn't object to govt agencies using clipper chips.

But the Freeh/Denning position, as I understand it, is that:

* privacy is not a right
* the govt should routinely spy on citizens
* strong crypto should be illegal
* no public debate on the underlying issues

Are there other computer scientists with this position?

Roger