Re: Clipper and Traffic Analysis

> The reason I ask is, I have this sense that one reason the
> government likes Clipper is that the Law Enforcement
> Access Field enables agents to draw inferences about
> who's talking to whom and what they're saying, even
> without decrypting the actual communications. 

> 


Is it true that law enforcement can obtain phone records from the  
phone company simply by asking?  Or do they need a supena(sp)?

It would not surprise me in the least to hear someday that the  
government will allow law enforcement to record LEAFs without having  
to obtain a warrant for a wiretap.  If Clipper becomes widespread,  
and most conversations are encrypted, the government might  
conveniently redefine the term "wiretap" to mean "decrypting a  
Clipper conversation".  This would open it up for the government to  
continuously monitor and record LEAFs, probably via the soon to be  
mandated "wiretap" capabilities the FBI is pushing for.

"After all, the LEAF is just the electronic equivalent of your phone  
record.  This new definition of "wiretap" does not give law  
enforcement any new capabilities.  Since the actual contents of the  
conversation are encrypted, there is no invasion of privicy.  We're  
just trying to keep up with the latest technological advances."


Jim_Miller@suite.com

Speaking of phone records and such, btw, AT&T keeps phone
records for quite a long time.  About half a year or
so my girlfriend visited her relatives in Hong Kong
and I called her there to save them some major money.
 
A few months ago, I get a letter/offer from AT&T
saying that I could save over xxx% on calls to HK,
Taiwan, etc...  Now, I'm a white boy and my name
would give them absolutely no hint of having
relatives or friends in Hong Kong.  Obviously they
keep records for waaaay far back, and keep them in
use!!!
 
If they use'em for advertising, you can bet they
use them for other shady "law-enforcement" type info
for cops, etc....