NODE 29b1f956No Subject
rishab@dxm.ernet.inFri, 11 Mar 94 19:20:48 PST
cowen@glia.biostr.washington.edu:
though joe 6-pack might not vote, and likely won't even understand about
the crypto of it all. he would understand the police listening in on his
conversations with jill 6-pack. and not like it to well. i do think
The police can listen in anyway... In fact, so can anyone. And it's much easier
for the police to listen in now, than it will be after Clipper.
Joe 6-pack may not really worry about Clipper. In fact, Joe 6-pack may even be
persuaded by Dr. Denning that Clipper will only be bad for criminals.
As much of the public does not necessarily share our objection to Clipper,
which is a matter of *principle*, really. The only people who might be
adversely affected by Clipper *in practice* are those who are lulled into a
sense of false security that Clipperphones are secure, when they're not.
Joe 6-pack is not even likely to *buy* a Clipperphone, he's quite happy talking
to Jill over plaintext lines, and hasn't yet raised a furour over the LE right
to (after 'due procedure') listen in to the *plaintext* lines.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rishab Aiyer Ghosh "What is civilisation
rishab@doe.ernet.in, rishab@dxm.ernet.in but a ribonucleic
Voicemail +91 11 3760335; Vox/Fax/Data 6853410 hangover?"
H-34C Saket New Delhi 110017 INDIA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NODE 40d1348fRe: your mail
paul@hawksbill.sprintmrn.com (Paul Ferguson)Fri, 11 Mar 94 19:43:54 PST
rishab@dxm.ernet,in writes -
> The police can listen in anyway... In fact, so can anyone. And it's much easier
> for the police to listen in now, than it will be after Clipper.
>
> Joe 6-pack may not really worry about Clipper. In fact, Joe 6-pack may even be
> persuaded by Dr. Denning that Clipper will only be bad for criminals.
>
> As much of the public does not necessarily share our objection to Clipper,
> which is a matter of *principle*, really. The only people who might be
> adversely affected by Clipper *in practice* are those who are lulled into a
> sense of false security that Clipperphones are secure, when they're not.
> Joe 6-pack is not even likely to *buy* a Clipperphone, he's quite happy talking
> to Jill over plaintext lines, and hasn't yet raised a furour over the LE right
> to (after 'due procedure') listen in to the *plaintext* lines.
I'm fairly "lipped-sealed" when it comes to most chit-chat, keeping my
big mouth shut. I ususally chime in when least expeected, and when most
insidious.
You, on the other end of the spectrum, seem to have a desire to open
your mouth without a deep understanding of the encryption dilemma.
That's okay.
Cypherpunks objectives totally "fix" your subjective scenario(s).
Dig around a bit...
_______________________________________________________________________________
Paul Ferguson
Internet Engineering tel: 703.904.2437
Herndon, Virginia USA internet: paul@hawk.sprintmrn.com
NODE 6eb730f1No Subject
"Perry E. Metzger" <pmetzger@lehman.com>Sat, 12 Mar 94 05:45:17 PST
rishab@dxm.ernet.in says:
> The police can listen in anyway... In fact, so can anyone. And it's
> much easier for the police to listen in now, than it will be after
> Clipper.
The police can listen in LEGALLY anyway. However, illegal monitoring,
which they are used to being able to do, is becoming increasingly
difficult. Illegal monitoring increasingly requires the active
cooperation of phone company employees who may talk.
Clipper, combined with the FBI Digital Telephony bill, would eliminate
this difficulty, and in fact provide monitoring abilities to the
police that they never had before.
Perry