From: Brian Davis <bdavis@thepoint.net>
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 1996 18:08:28 +0800
To: Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: You want to read MY e-mail?
In-Reply-To: <199601210839.DAA04781@bb.hks.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960121044925.3026D-100000@mercury.thepoint.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Sun, 21 Jan 1996, Rich Graves wrote:

> -----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-
> >>  ...
> >>    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.
>

I agree that there is a legitimate public interest in the records (recall 
the dispute when the White House planned to delete all emails, leaving no 
backups, during a change of Administration).  That doesn't mean that spin 
can't be placed on the news.  What if Congress decided to reduce its 
salary by 28% and exempt its members from filing tax returns -- to save 
wear and tear on IRS computers and service centers?

My point, however, is that privacy advocates can, and should, use their 
own equivalent of the Four Horsemen (tm) in making their arguments to the 
masses.  I can't recall a single statement as short and catchy as 
the pornographers, terrorists, drug dealers, and money launderers 
argument the FBI uses.  Tim's (?) "Four Horsemen" idea cleverly attempts to 
turn the argument on its head, but I fear that his implicit statment will be 
lost on those with less background on why privacy is important.   

Demagoguery frequently works, even if it can be distasteful.  And short 
catchy ideas sell.  Remember that Miami Vice was described in the 
beginning stages as "MTV Cops" and the network bought.
 
> ... 
> 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.

Should the same policy apply to altavista?  (I recognize the difference, 
just throwing grenades!) 


> 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
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ???
I'm assuming the email was in a closed system, not on the net ...

> 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),
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Absolutely.  Different spins/messages for different audiences.  Just like 
the politicians.  I think the crowd may be broader than the Cypherpunks 
list, however.


> but sounds like a non sequitur to me. Not that clever non sequiturs aren't
> useful.

Indeed. 

>... 
> - -rich

EBD