Re: YAA (yet another article)

>ComputerWorld
>June 14, 1993
>Volume 27, Number 24
>pages 73,74
> 
>However, a summary of some of those wiretaps, provided by the Federal
>Bureau of Investigation, might cause even the most wary to warm up a
>little closer to Clipper:
> 
>* A wiretap led to the arrest and conviction of a "sexually deviant
>  serial murderer" who had operated in New Jersey and New Mexico.

As an individual, who would he be talking to via Clipper? His victims? Not
bloody likely. High-tech protection doesn't fall under the MO of this kind
of killer.

>* Another wiretap enabled authorities to thwart Chicago's "El Rukns
>  street gang" from a Libyan government-sponsored attempt to shoot
>  down a U.S. commercial airliner with a military weapons system.

They find these all the time through other mechanisms.

>* The entire leadership of the Mafia's Colombo family was convicted
>  with the help of wiretaps.

Legalize drugs and prostitution and the Mafia will dry up and blow away.
Besides, these guys have enough money to have purchased and used private
scrambling gear anyway; the fact that they haven't (leading to their
capture) leads one to believe they wouldn't use Clipper anyway. If the
current leadership is smarter, they'll be smart enough to use non-Clipper
gear anyway, eliminating the advantage Clipper gives to the Justice Dept.

>Hellman has an ingenious idea that might appeal to those concerned
>about civil liberties. He would require not one but three judges to
>authorize a Clipper wiretap. A judge could answer the request with
>"Yes," "No or "Oh, my God!" The latter means, "This looks like an
>attempted abuse of power, as in Watergate."
> 
>If a Clipper tap request got even one "Oh, my God!" decision, the
>target of the wiretap would be notified. Because that is the last thing
>the requestor would want, it would serve as a powerful check on
>frivolous or improper requests.

I gotta admit that I kinda like this. I should point out, though, that it
ought to be applied regardless of the wiretapping technology applied; that
is, this mechanism should be used today for all court-authorized wiretaps.

Jason Zions says:
> >* A wiretap led to the arrest and conviction of a "sexually deviant
> >  serial murderer" who had operated in New Jersey and New Mexico.
> 
> As an individual, who would he be talking to via Clipper? His victims? Not
> bloody likely. High-tech protection doesn't fall under the MO of this kind
> of killer.

Look, lets get real here.

Wiretaps ARE an effective mechanism for law enforcement -- no question
about it.

The issue is not the effectiveness of wiretaps. Its the overall effect
on society.

Torture, believe it or not, is a very effective way of police to get
information. Our society bans it. Every mechanism that is useful is
not acceptable.

Stopping crypto to allow wiretaps forces every person in society to
give up their privacy, which probably costs billions of dollars and
thousands of lives, for the sake of only a small amount of money and
lives saved.

Outlawing strong privacy might stop some mafiosi -- but it will allow
others to rake in billions via wirefraud and dozens of other
mechanisms. 

It also likely won't stop the mafiosi and terrorists since they will
get strong cryptosystems anyway for virtually no cost. What do they
care that they are breaking the law?

Perry