Re: GAK

At 09:25 PM 9/3/95 -0400, Brian Davis wrote:

>I, of course, know of the "dislike" of GAK here.  I am curious to know, 
>however, if the "dislike" is because government would have access under 
>any circumstances or if the primary worry is that government will cheat 
>and get access when most would agree that they shouldn't (either by the 
>judge "cheating" or a TLA stealing it).

Individuals will have their individual objections.  My objections are that I
don't like governments spending tax money that they don't absolutely have
to.  Their own survival is *not* a necessity.  I think controlling people's
speech is a waste of money.  Very few Common Law crimes (ie real crimes) are
dependent on wiretap evidence for solution.  Only phoney bureaucratic crimes
(the retail pharmaceutical trade, insider trading, gambling, conspiring to
overthrow the government, etc) need wiretaps. 

My second objection is the control of people's speech.  If I communicate
with someone, I want to communicate with *them*.  I don't want to
communicate with the Feds.  The Supremes have held that the right to speak
includes the right not to be forced to speak.  By implication, I would argue
that I have the right to choose my own channels of communication including
my intended audience (and this has been upheld by the Supremes in other
contexts).

If the Feds want to know what I've written or said (non-publicly) let them
subpoena me and I will be happy to tell them to go to hell.

If we can deploy technologies to protect our freedom to communicate the way
*we* choose to, then we have the right to do so.  Beyond rights, we have the
power to do so --- which is worth even more.

>In other words ... if it took agreement by a review board composed of 
>non-LEA members of this list, would the escrow be acceptable??

I don't think many of us would feel better if a private party had to approve
the invasion of our privacy.

DCF

"You can ignore all of the rest of bullshit.  All that you need to know
about an enemy is how many guns and men does he have and can they stand fire."

What's technology got to do with it, in principle?  If
I write a letter in code, do I have to send the FBI the
key, just in case?

I don't see anything complicated about this--Director
Freeh wants more wiretapping ability than he's got now,
and I have no doubt that that expansion of FBI power
would be good for national security and law enforcement.

So would an FBI camcorder in every room of every house.
The question is where to draw the line, and I'd rather
let the lines draw themselves, as opposed to having 
citizens be compelled to draw them.  The telephone
system, Mr. Freeh's preferred analog, is inherently
susceptible to tapping, but what if it were not, and
every telephone were required to be equipped with
a government tap switch, subuect to warrant, of course?

I don't think I'd like that.  Would you?

MacN

On Tue, 12 Sep 1995, Duncan Frissell wrote:

> At 09:25 PM 9/3/95 -0400, Brian Davis wrote:
> 
> >I, of course, know of the "dislike" of GAK here.  I am curious to know, 
> >however, if the "dislike" is because government would have access under 
> >any circumstances or if the primary worry is that government will cheat 
> >and get access when most would agree that they shouldn't (either by the 
> >judge "cheating" or a TLA stealing it).
> 
> 
> If we can deploy technologies to protect our freedom to communicate the way
> *we* choose to, then we have the right to do so.  Beyond rights, we have the
> power to do so --- which is worth even more.

On Tue, 12 Sep 1995, Mac Norton wrote:

> What's technology got to do with it, in principle?  If
> I write a letter in code, do I have to send the FBI the
> key, just in case?
...
The distinction, I think, is that for the past 40, 50, 60 ??? years, 
wiretapping has been available, recently only through court order 
(lawfully).  Encryption changes the status quo.

Change brings those who want to hasten it and those who want to stop it.  
The problem here, at least for me, is what *should* the policy be.  You 
(with one or two exceptions) have provided me with a lot of grist for the 
mill.  My thought process has changed dramatically on the issue, but is 
still fluid.

EBD