From: Declan McCullagh <declan@pathfinder.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 17:38:37 -0800 (PST)
To: Clay Olbon II <olbon@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Newt's phone calls
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970113191647.098f90d2@popd.ix.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970113203329.21655A-100000@cp.pathfinder.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Don't be too sure that crypto is that far beneath the radar. I spent
Thursday through Saturday at an annual privacy conference for activists
from around the country, and they understood the principles. Their
voicemails were filling up with calls from reporters last Friday about the
Gingrich incident, and I know they were talking crypto.

The only other journalist who was there made an interesting point, that
encrypting cell phone traffic only up to the point it hits the phone
system wouldn't hinder L.E. access but would protect privacy. (Or,
perhaps, would be worse in the long term since we wouldn't have such
luscious examples.) 

-Declan


On Mon, 13 Jan 1997, Clay Olbon II wrote:

> 
> I just caught the news reports of Newt Gingrich's cell phone calls being
> taped by "a little old retired couple" with a scanner.  These were then
> given to a congressman, who gave them to a newspaper.
> 
> The take on this that we won't hear is: "This is outrageous!  Why don't
> cell-phones offer encryption to ensure our privacy?"
> 
> Unfortunately, I think crypto is still so far beneath the public
> consciousness that the obvious solution to these sorts of problems is
> ignored in favor of the "there oughta be a law" non-solution.  (Of course,
> in this case there is a law!) What I really hope this incident spawns is a
> market ...
> 
>         Clay
> 
> *******************************************************
> Clay Olbon			    olbon@ix.netcom.com
> sys-admin, engineer, programmer, statistitian, etc.
> **********************************************tanstaafl
> 
>