Re: Kellstrom Calls for DT Funding

[File under the "be careful what you ask for" heading]

At 12:58 AM 7/20/96, jim bell wrote:
>At 02:33 PM 7/19/96 -0400, Duncan Frissell wrote:
>>In a "briefing" on TWA 800 when one of the reporters tossed Big Jim
>>Kellstrom (Deputy Director in Charge of the New York Office) of the FBI a
>>softball question about what he needed to fight terrorism; he took the
>>opportunity to call for full funding of the Digital Telephony Bill.  He said
>>the usual about how bad guys conspire and we need to tap.
>
>
>Too bad these people aren't required to show specific examples where the
>"bad guys" got away as a result of their failure to be able to do wiretaps.

I don't think asking for this evidence is a good idea. After all, there
probably _are_ such examples. It stands to reason.

But so what? The issue is not whether extensive wiretapping would catch
certain conspirators and head off certain crimes, the issue is one of how
liberal and free societies are to operate. Our system has frowned upon such
Orwellian schemes as mandating that video cameras be placed in all
residences and in all hotel rooms, regardless of whether certain crimes
would be detected or deterred.

The proper argument is not to demand proof of how useful such measures as
the FBI would like to see are, but, rather, to focus on basic rights
issues.

--Tim May

Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software!
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Licensed Ontologist         | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

> > Too bad these people aren't required to show specific examples where the
> > "bad guys" got away as a result of their failure to be able to do wiretaps.
> 
> I don't think asking for this evidence is a good idea. After all, there
> probably _are_ such examples. It stands to reason.
> 
> But so what? The issue is not whether extensive wiretapping would catch
> certain conspirators and head off certain crimes, the issue is one of how
> liberal and free societies are to operate. Our system has frowned upon such
> Orwellian schemes as mandating that video cameras be placed in all
> residences and in all hotel rooms, regardless of whether certain crimes
> would be detected or deterred.
> 
> The proper argument is not to demand proof of how useful such measures as
> the FBI would like to see are, but, rather, to focus on basic rights
> issues.

I must violently agree.

Having escrowed video cameras in every room in every house will surely
deter violence in the homes as most child and spousal abuse are (no big
surprise) done by family.  But even such horrors as child rape and
beating cannot justify video cameras in every room; not because it is
expensive, but because it is a gross violation of privacy.  (But the
FBI promises it would not use it without a court order, right?  Sure.)

People, in general, understand the severity of "video escrow".  They
just do not understand the severity of "key escrow" yet.

Ern