From: llurch@networking.stanford.edu (Rich Graves)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 1996 16:54:51 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: You want to read MY e-mail?
Message-ID: <199601210839.DAA04781@bb.hks.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

bdavis@thepoint.net (Brian Davis) shared with the world:
>On Sat, 20 Jan 1996, Scott Staedeli wrote:
>
>>    from the Nando Times-
>>
>> DENVER (Jan 20, 1996 01:16 a.m. EST) -- A college student's request to look
>> at the electronic mail of several high-profile state politicians got
>> lawmakers' attention Friday.
>>
>>  ...
>>    OK, if _I_ can't read your e-mail Mr. Legislator, why should you
>> be able to read _mine_?
>
>The Colorado state legislature has nothing to do with federal wiretapping
>laws and with federal laws relating to encryption.

Mostly true. But state governments and state politicians have been naughty
as well. Certain southern governors in the 50's and 60's spring immediately
to mind.

However, I think "an eye for an eye" is the wrong approach in the first
place. There's an opportunity for education here, and progress.

>Rather than the "government is inconsistent and bad" spin, why not
>"Colorado legislators and the Colorado governor agree that privacy is
>paramount in electronic communications.  In opposing a request for
>blanket access to their private electronic mail, they necessarily oppose
>federal attempts to have access to all electronic mail, once again
>showing that Washington is out of touch with the rest of the country.

This is clever, but I don't think it works. There is a legitimate public
interest here. Even if there's nothing incriminating in the email messages
themselves, the questions of how much government business is conducted
electronically, and how much non-government business (personal matters,
political fund-raising) is conducted on publicly funded computers on
government time are legitimate.

Pertsonally, I'd be reluctant to peep into every message ever sent on a
government computer -- it's too voyeuristic for my tastes. I'm especially
thinking about that poor staffer who was grilled by the Whitewater Committee
about one use of the word "bastard" in an unrelated email message to a
friend that had been deleted years before. It doesn't seem right to grep
for out-of-context soundbytes. Not that the new book "White House Email"
isn't good for hours of entertainment.

I'd like to see politicians put on official notice that all email on
publicly owned computers is public property, though it would be hard to
draw the line where politicians and political appointees end and the
innocent line employee begins. If the politicians end up using crypto on
government computers, great -- maybe they'd start to "get it." If the
politicians want to open accounts with outside ISPs on their own (or their
political party's) dime, great -- that's what a lot of other people on this
list have had to do. Of course if some politician starts using an outside
account for official business (and only then), then that account becomes
fair game for public disclosure as well. It's a matter of ethics and
accountability.

Because politicians have not yet been put on official notice that this is
the policy, though, I would not endorse making this policy retroactive and
grepping all their email for dirt, unless the public has something like
probable cause to do so. Next year, sure, it's all public record.

Politicians should be educated that privacy without strong encryption is
illusory anyway. Making a law that the public can't read their email simply
isn't going to work. It's unenforceable. Sure it'll slow down the rate of
public disclosure a bit. Still, some disgruntled ex-employee, or some
Woodward & Bernstein type, or Jim Bell :-), is bound to get through.

Scandals long to be free.

>Parts of the federal government are catching on, however.  The U.S. Commerce
>Department recently agreed that federal attempts to
>eavesdrop on electronic transmissions counterproductive in that they are
>causing problems for U.S. companies which create computer programs
>designed to allow secure use of the Internet to engage in private
>discussions and secure commerce.  Estimates the dollar value of exports
>lost range up to $xxx, and continued chilling of U.S. programmers will
>give foreign programmers the chance to catch up in a field where U.S.
>expertise presently leads the world. ...."
>
>Needs to be re-written and juiced up, but you get the idea.

Might play to the right crowd (for example, preaching to the choir here),
but sounds like a non sequitur to me. Not that clever non sequiturs aren't
useful.

By the way, I read something about something similar happening in California.
The new Republican Assembly "leadership" was trying to hold the computers of
the previous Democtatic "leadership" in escrow so that they could look for
dirt. Anyone know the outcome of that?

- -rich
- ---
[This message has been signed by an auto-signing service.  A valid signature
means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the
signature and forwarded.]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Gratis auto-signing service

iQBFAwUBMQH7yioZzwIn1bdtAQHC/wF8DHUhQpWkNAE8bVHeB9zUbXG7ju2Y1+Bo
LHsVK6M4Qwd8Q2HMbaMe2/y5xBpryyVh
=A+29
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----