From: "Paul H. Merrill" <paulmerrill@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 07:48:21 -0700 (PDT)
To: Xcott Craver <caj@math.niu.edu>
Subject: Re: DirFBI: Danger of Encryption
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.980713001437.3108A-100000@baker>
Message-ID: <35AA4A36.1EB56250@acm.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Actually, his statement was interesting and a masterpiece.  While it is
true that the access to communications is recent, the court orders for
evidence have been around.  What he "failed to mention" was that they have
access currently which is unheard of in the past and that it is only that
slice of life that would have "absolute nullity".

Gee, don't they teach Propoganda 101 anymore?

PHM

Xcott Craver wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Jul 1998, John Young wrote:
>
> > The New York Times, July 12, 1998:
> >
>         [...]
>
> > but eliminate any risk of abuse by law enforcement. But if
> > we do not allow for court-ordered access, for the first time
> > in the history of this country a court order for seizure of
> > evidence will be an absolute nullity.
>
>         This is an interesting claim.  Surely it's only been
>         in this century that law enforcement has ever had
>         the kind of systematic access to communication that presently
>         does.  I'd say Louis Freeh is lacking in the history department
>         if he really believes that Americans have never possessed
>         as much privacy as strong crypto offers.
>
>         I'd also say he's missed a few history classes if he
>         thinks that the world will blow up without him listening
>         in.
>
>                                                         -Xcott