NODE 4664613cRe: A correction, and another motive for Clipper
Arthur Abraham <a2@well.sf.ca.us>Tue, 27 Apr 93 14:58:59 PDT
Eli,
Of course the guys with the STU phones will keep them, this is Type II
security, which is of a lower level.
The people who really need these phones are the civil servants in these
departments:
Agriculture
Commerce
Education
Energy
EPA
HHS
HUD
Interior
Justice
Labor
State
Transportation
Treasury
Veterans Affairs
...that is, people in positions to missapropriate funds, or create
overly generous contracts with their future employers. There is no
good argument that these functionaries shouldn't be Clippered, except
that nobody should be. ""National Security"" doesn't apply here.
You also seem to be thinking with two cliches:
1. You can't fight city hall.
2. This is the way things have always been, this is the way they always
will be.
The guys who put this in motion certainly aren't thinking with 2), but they
sure are hoping you're thinking with 1).
Please expunge both of them from your mind and replace then with an
appreciation of forces and masses: Judo.
-a2.]
NODE b343fcfeRe: A correction, and another motive for Clipper
Eli Brandt <ebrandt@jarthur.Claremont.EDU>Tue, 27 Apr 93 19:39:59 PDT
> From: Arthur Abraham <a2@well.sf.ca.us>
Your point is that government employees in non-critical positions
might end up using Clipper, and this would either reduce corruption
or, alternatively, drive the government to repudiate the entire
scheme.
The latter will not happen (at least not for this reason). Labeling
of cliches notwithstanding, there is no reason why government
employees could not use a different standard if they found it
necessary. This would be no more politically disagreeable than many
steps taken in the past.
The former I don't understand. The direct effect of Clipper would
be to make eavesdropping by other than LE more difficult. There
could be an impact on corruption only if it were known or believed
that the level of surveillance had concomitantly increased -- if all
calls were tapped and archived, perhaps. This would be bad. It
would undoubtedly increase the likelihood of such a policy's being
implemented w.r.t. the general population.
> -a2.]
Eli ebrandt@jarthur.claremont.edu