From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 10:35:59 +0800
To: "Timothy C. May" <cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: yellow journalism and Encryption
Message-ID: <199610082059.NAA12207@mail.pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 08:57 AM 10/8/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote:
>
>Vinnie may think this is "asswipe journalism," but I think it's one of the
>more interesting and revealing articles we've seen. In fact, it's a pretty
>good summary of the history of wiretaps, the tension between privacy and
>surveillance, and the thinking of those pushing for GAK/Key Recovery.

I too was mystified about his reaction to this article.  We certainly don't 
see articles as appropriate as it every day.


>At 11:12 PM -0700 10/7/96, Vinnie Moscaritolo wrote:
>>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/examiner/article.cgi?year=1996&month=10&day=
06&ar
>>t
>>Encryption controversy pits life against liberty
>>TOM ABATE
>>EXAMINER COLUMNIST
>...
>>"Wiretapping is the main issue," said Stewart Baker, former general counsel
>>of the National Security Agency, the CIA's code-breaking and eavesdroping
>>cousin.
[snip]

>>Having access to a spare set of code-breaking keys "is not a shift in the
>>balance of power," Vatis said. "It's preserving
>>the status quo."
>
>Clearly these folks are talking as if GAK/Key Recovery is mandated for
>_domestic_ communications.
>
>(I think we'll be seeing some mighty interesting documents and discussions
>coming out as FOIAs are filed. Just as the FOIAs a few years ago showed the
>true thinking behind Clipper: the eventual outlawing of non-Clipper
>alternatives.)

I was happy to see this article describe the case AGAINST wiretapping, using 
exactly the same arguments that I previously stated.  Fortunately, the 
person quoted as pushing them was identified as a lawyer, which (I hope) 
will shut down the naysayers around here.  The way I see it, an excellent 
reason to develop the case against wiretapping is to negate down the 
argument (which this article shows has been used in favor of Clipper) that 
the "status quo" is somehow an acceptable situation.  If we ever get the 
GAK-supporters in some kind of real debate that they can't walk away from, 
the moment they claim that Clipper/GAK is merely "maintaining the status 
quo" we should be prepared to show that the "status quo" was illegitimately 
adopted, modified from an illegal situation pre-1968, and intended (as the 
article indicated) to keep the Democrats in power during a time in which 
they were maintaining the Vietnam war.  

In addition, a lot has come out in the last decade or two about what the US 
Government was up to in the 1960's and before, illegal things, so I'd argue 
that in hindsight that nobody should have embraced wiretapping if they knew 
the circumstances under which it was promoted.  Cointelpro, etc.  Bringing 
up the issue of J. Edgar Hoover in drag might be considered a low blow, but 
who cares about fighting "fair" if nobody knows what "fair" is?

Inform the average citizen of all this, and THEN tell him that the Supreme 
Court is unlikely to want to admit they were wrong to support wiretaps, and 
he'll welcome the news that technology is going to shortly provide him with 
a way to fix this legal problem with a technical solution.  At that point, 
"the status quo" will be looking MIGHTY unacceptable, and we've won the 
argument.  For anybody who wanted to support GAK claiming it was 
"maintaining the status quo," this will be an argument which is essentially 
impossible to defeat, particularly in a debate.





Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com