From: Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 1997 00:41:16 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: Freeh's Testimony (FBI Seeks Domestic GAK)
In-Reply-To: <v03007804afeb160fdc2b@[198.115.179.81]>
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970711122229.006c8c44@panix.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



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

>Statement of Louis J. Freeh, Director, FBI, before the Senate Judiciary
>Committee Hearing on Encryption, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. -
>July 9, 1997

>Would we allow a car to be driven with features which would evade and
>outrun police cars? 

But we do.  Two hundred MPH cars remain street legal most places.  With a 
good driver, these cars can even move fast enough to outrun radio 
communications (or rather the response time involved in radio 
communications).  The search circle that contains them becomes too big too 
fast.

>Would we build houses or
>buildings which firefighters could not enter to save people?

These remain legal as well.  Heinlein's reinforced concrete house on Bonny 
Doone road in the Santa Cruz mountains.  It is perfectly legal to build a 
reinforced concrete structure that could defeat entry for many days.

More generally, it is legal not to speak and thus to deprive police and 
prosecutors of the contents of your mind.  Crypto just extends this right.

>Most importantly, we are not advocating that the privacy rights or personal
>security of any person or enterprise be compromised
>or threatened. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. 

I don't think this has ever been tested in court.  I'll bet their are many 
circumstances in which it is perfectly legal to shout fire in a(n unburning) 
crowded theater.

>You can't with
>impunity commit libel or slander. 

Unless you're judgement proof.  These are usually civil not criminal matters 
in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.

>In support of our position for a rational encryption policy which balances
>public safety with the right to secure communications,
>we rely on the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. There the framers
>established a delicate balance between "the right of the
>people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects (today we
>might add personal computers, modems, data
>streams, discs, etc.) against unreasonable searches and seizures." Those
>precious rights, however, were balanced against the
>legitimate right and necessity of the police, acting through strict legal
>process, to gain access by lawful search and seizure to the
>conversations and stored evidence of criminals, spies and terrorists.

Course you long ago dropped the bit about "reasonable cause to believe a 
*crime *has been* committed."  Loads of preventive wiretaps and regulatory 
searches in the absence of even the accusation of a crime.  Violating Regs is 
usually not a crime.

>The precepts and balance of the Fourth Amendment have not changed or
>altered. What has changed from the late eighteenth to
>the late twentieth century is technology and telecommunications well beyond
>the contemplation of the framers.

Course the Framers didn't have wiretaps either since they had no wires.  
We're just trying to restore the balance to the way it was in those days.  No 
wiretaps.

DCF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBM8ZdwYVO4r4sgSPhAQFzuwQAsIaHDDZgqS7j2Fit59XgF/6dRMtVlMc8
cSdEZcJX+PgNPSfLMnJ3YzYZ0tchmtRseD3xpx/eSnFrs5mTk8EhwPoPjMec1ydc
yzHKkQJ/Nv0aNDkGGv/ertjA9TsbLBnKYHMEmDLAq9EyQ6rnnbeedJx36GwTw9BM
RYabw2seBxU=
=HIgS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----