Re: Admiral Inman

>replied that the governmental concern about wiretaps was and is primarily
>and unambiguously about narcotics.

and

>Back to Narcotics.  He gave the statistic that 90% of the narcotics leads
>related to money laundering come from domestic wiretaps.

Wow, this is easy then: legalize drugs and wiretaps are practically
unessessary. Buy a copy of High Times today! ;)

It does amaze me that what can be a victimless activity is such
a hotbutton.

A direct quote from him saying the above would be a nice tool the
next time kiddie porn and terrorists are thrown out for the press
to chew on.

>Inman was surprised by the looming introduction of VoicePGP, and said that
>that would be a big problem

I like the sound of this.

>                                                             So Inman
>seems sensitive to issues of privacy, but in this case, they seem to be
>primarily associated with invasions of privacy by the media rather than by
>the government.

Typical.

Sounds like a very interesting talk.

-j

On Mon, 21 Nov 1994, Jamie Lawrence wrote:

> >replied that the governmental concern about wiretaps was and is primarily
> >and unambiguously about narcotics.
> 
> and
> 
> >Back to Narcotics.  He gave the statistic that 90% of the narcotics leads
> >related to money laundering come from domestic wiretaps.
> 
> Wow, this is easy then: legalize drugs and wiretaps are practically
> unessessary. Buy a copy of High Times today! ;)

Unfortunately this first bit is typical of the "Four Horseman" 
demonization.  The fault here is a logic flaw called "After the fact,
therefore because of the fact."  In this case the reason that all the
narcotics leads related to money laundering come from wiretaps is because
this is the only method applied to obtaining such leads on a serious basis.

I have long argued that the entire emphasis on the importance of 
wiretaps, and all the statistics associated with these arguments fail 
this basic test.  Next time you hear someone touting the importance of 
wiretaps because X million dollars is saved by the criminals caught with 
wiretaps, ask "Why weren't normal physical/intrusive devices used?"

One of the requirements in most showing requirements for the approval of 
wiretaps requires an agent to assert that a phone wiretap is the only way to 
obtain the needed information.  Of course this has become a joke.

The other issue, perhaps the real issue, is that wiretaps have more limited 
4th amendment protections than do physical/intrusive devices.

I think you'd solve a lot of problems by admitting that the crucial need for 
wiretapping ability is a farce and grew out of attempts to circumvent the 
4th amendment in the then budding war on drugs.  I expect any day to be 
told of the "wiretap" crisis, and following in the "crisis" political 
pattern (Declare a crisis, yank rights and replace them with 
entitlements) go back to a system where you have to lease your government 
subsidized (read bugged) phone equipment.

Crypto hook in?  Given the increased reliance on communications what has 
been the respective addition in protection for electronic communication 
privacy?  None.  If anything there is the opposite.  If I'm wrong, I'd love 
to be corrected.

So now that Crypto threatens the end run on the 4th amendment, government 
cries bloody murder.  God forbid the citizenry might be allowed to 
protect themselves from 4th amendment circumvention.  This is raised to 
the point of lunacy when one considers the rationale behind limited 4th 
amendment protections for telephone conversations, and the almost absent 
protection for call setup information.

The rationale is essentially this:  One must exert a manafest expectation 
of privacy to claim protection under the 4th amendment.  Conveying the 
information to a third party, or any set of parties other than the 
recipiant, demonstrates a lack of manafest expectation of privacy.  In the 
case of call setup information, you convey, intentionally, call setup 
information to the phone company, and thus cannot expect it to remain 
private.

Now, when cryptography changes this balance, and essentially eliminates 
cleanly the entire rationale behind allowing wiretaps their favorable 
status outside active 4th amendment protection, we ban cryptography, or 
limit it so severely as to put it within the same "convey the information 
to a third party" analysis.  (Clipper, where you "convey" your key to an 
escrow agent.)  SURPRISE, you have no expectation of privacy in that 
information.  No 4th amendment protection.

Does any of this even strike you as odd in today's world however?

I didn't think so.


Wow, all that from a few lines of original text?  (Oh well).


-uni- (Dark)


073BB885A786F666 nemo repente fuit turpissimus - potestas scientiae in usu est
6E6D4506F6EDBC17 quaere verum ad infinitum, loquitur sub rosa    -    wichtig!

Black Unicorn writes
> Wow, all that from a few lines of original text?  (Oh well).

Our enemies are industriously corrupting the language in order
to make the ideas of liberty inexpressible.   In particular
they are seeking to make the concepts behind the declaration
of independence and the bill of rights unspeakably and therefore,
they hope, unthinkable.

Thus it is often necessary to do a lengthy exegesis, in order
to explain what they are really saying -- see for example
certain recent flame wars.


-- 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our
property, because of the kind of animals that we        James A. Donald
are.  True law derives from this right, not from
the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.            jamesd@acm.org

On Mon, 21 Nov 1994, James A. Donald wrote:

> Black Unicorn writes
> > Wow, all that from a few lines of original text?  (Oh well).
> 
> Our enemies are industriously corrupting the language in order
> to make the ideas of liberty inexpressible.   In particular
> they are seeking to make the concepts behind the declaration
> of independence and the bill of rights unspeakably and therefore,
> they hope, unthinkable.
> 
> Thus it is often necessary to do a lengthy exegesis, in order
> to explain what they are really saying -- see for example
> certain recent flame wars.
> 

Wow, all that from a few lines of original text?  :)

> 
> -- 
>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> We have the right to defend ourselves and our
> property, because of the kind of animals that we        James A. Donald
> are.  True law derives from this right, not from
> the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.            jamesd@acm.org
> 
> 

073BB885A786F666 nemo repente fuit turpissimus - potestas scientiae in usu est
6E6D4506F6EDBC17 quaere verum ad infinitum, loquitur sub rosa    -    wichtig!

A direct quote from him saying the above would be a nice tool the
   next time kiddie porn and terrorists are thrown out for the press
   to chew on.

I recall hearing that Inman lost a tremendous amount of credibility in the
government and the media during the confimation; there appeared the press
afterward some articles about how undeserved his sterling repuation was
after he "babbled on about his paranoias" during the confirmation.  Someone
with more information about the hearings could post the transcripts and
news articles. My impression of him during the class was that Inman was
well informed and on top of things.  But it's debatable the degree to which
a direct quote from him would sway the press.