From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 10:53:59 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: Most elegant wording against privacy/law-enforcement "balance"
In-Reply-To: <9802070144.AA11833@mentat.com>
Message-ID: <v03102804b101759635ad@[207.167.93.63]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




I strongly, emphatically, disagree with the reasoning used here by Jim
Gillogly:

At 5:44 PM -0800 2/6/98, Jim Gillogly wrote:
>Guy skribis:
>> What are the most elegant rebuttals to politicians saying we
>> need Key Recovery as a "reasonable balance between the needs of
>> law enforcement vs. freedom of crypto"?
>
>I don't know how elegant it is, but here's my response:
>
>Compromising the public's right to privacy gives away not only our own
>rights, but those of our descendants.  The government must make an
>extraordinary case to justify undermining those rights, and so far it
>has not done so.

"So far it has not done so."

This "argument based on utilitarian need" is at odds with the First
Amendment. The notion that a form of speech in letters and phone calls and
conversations could be compelled because, say, the government concludes
that it is needed to stop some criminal actions, is ludicrous.

A policy requiring certain forms of speech is no different from a policy
saying the government may enter a house when it wishes.

I am drawing the parallel with the Fourth deliberately: no amount of
"study," even a study by such august persons as Denning and Baugh, could
ever conclude that wholesale, unwarranted searches are permissable. The
Fourth was put in just to stop such broad conclusions.

Likewise, the First is clearly directed against such broad restrictons on
speech (and religion, and assembly, and complaining (petitioning)) so that
no "study" can be used to broadly restrict speech.

And make no mistake about it, whatever the accepted arguments for
restricting certain types of speech (notoriously, the "Fire!" example) are,
they are not consistent with a broad requirement that persons face
imprisonment if they speak in codes, or fail to use transparent envelopes,
or disconnect the microphones in their homes!

>The most detailed research on the issue is a study by Dorothy Denning
>and William Baugh investigating the extent to which crypto has
>interfered with law enforcement's ability to get convictions: their
>bottom line was that crypto has not in fact interfered: law enforcement
>has been able to complete their investigations using other means.
>There's no demonstrated need for Government Access to Crypto Keys
>(GACK), so there's no need to compromise away our privacy.

Bluntly pu, "FUCK "DEMONSTRATED NEED"!"

And what if Denning and Baugh had reached other conclusions? (As well they
might, next year, when crypto is more widely deployed.)

I have strongly argued over the years against ever using some "government
study" as the basis for our arguments, even when the studies appear to
support our position.

What the studies giveth, the studies can taketh away.

--Tim May

Just Say No to "Big Brother Inside"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^3,021,377   | black markets, collapse of governments.