Re: Most elegant wording against privacy/law-enforcement "balance"

Guy skribis:
> What are the most elegant rebuttals to politicians saying we
> need Key Recovery as a "reasonable balance between the needs of
> law enforcement vs. freedom of crypto"?

I don't know how elegant it is, but here's my response:

Compromising the public's right to privacy gives away not only our own
rights, but those of our descendants.  The government must make an
extraordinary case to justify undermining those rights, and so far it
has not done so.

The most detailed research on the issue is a study by Dorothy Denning
and William Baugh investigating the extent to which crypto has
interfered with law enforcement's ability to get convictions: their
bottom line was that crypto has not in fact interfered: law enforcement
has been able to complete their investigations using other means.
There's no demonstrated need for Government Access to Crypto Keys
(GACK), so there's no need to compromise away our privacy.

	Jim Gillogly
	jim@acm.org

>> What are the most elegant rebuttals to politicians saying we
>> need Key Recovery as a "reasonable balance between the needs of
>> law enforcement vs. freedom of crypto"?

Someone, probably Jim Ray, has a nice phrase about
"Protecting the Fourth Amendment _is_ one of the legitimate needs
of law enforcement."  It's not an in-depth critique, but it's enough to
get a rant off to a good start, where you're on the moral high ground,
rather than the "Even the FBI's friends like Dorothy haven't found
a legitimate need for increasing wiretaps", which is a useful place
to go as long as you're already ahead.
				Thanks! 
					Bill
Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com
PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF  3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

I strongly, emphatically, disagree with the reasoning used here by Jim
Gillogly:

At 5:44 PM -0800 2/6/98, Jim Gillogly wrote:
>Guy skribis:
>> What are the most elegant rebuttals to politicians saying we
>> need Key Recovery as a "reasonable balance between the needs of
>> law enforcement vs. freedom of crypto"?
>
>I don't know how elegant it is, but here's my response:
>
>Compromising the public's right to privacy gives away not only our own
>rights, but those of our descendants.  The government must make an
>extraordinary case to justify undermining those rights, and so far it
>has not done so.

"So far it has not done so."

This "argument based on utilitarian need" is at odds with the First
Amendment. The notion that a form of speech in letters and phone calls and
conversations could be compelled because, say, the government concludes
that it is needed to stop some criminal actions, is ludicrous.

A policy requiring certain forms of speech is no different from a policy
saying the government may enter a house when it wishes.

I am drawing the parallel with the Fourth deliberately: no amount of
"study," even a study by such august persons as Denning and Baugh, could
ever conclude that wholesale, unwarranted searches are permissable. The
Fourth was put in just to stop such broad conclusions.

Likewise, the First is clearly directed against such broad restrictons on
speech (and religion, and assembly, and complaining (petitioning)) so that
no "study" can be used to broadly restrict speech.

And make no mistake about it, whatever the accepted arguments for
restricting certain types of speech (notoriously, the "Fire!" example) are,
they are not consistent with a broad requirement that persons face
imprisonment if they speak in codes, or fail to use transparent envelopes,
or disconnect the microphones in their homes!

>The most detailed research on the issue is a study by Dorothy Denning
>and William Baugh investigating the extent to which crypto has
>interfered with law enforcement's ability to get convictions: their
>bottom line was that crypto has not in fact interfered: law enforcement
>has been able to complete their investigations using other means.
>There's no demonstrated need for Government Access to Crypto Keys
>(GACK), so there's no need to compromise away our privacy.

Bluntly pu, "FUCK "DEMONSTRATED NEED"!"

And what if Denning and Baugh had reached other conclusions? (As well they
might, next year, when crypto is more widely deployed.)

I have strongly argued over the years against ever using some "government
study" as the basis for our arguments, even when the studies appear to
support our position.

What the studies giveth, the studies can taketh away.

--Tim May

Just Say No to "Big Brother Inside"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^3,021,377   | black markets, collapse of governments.

Tim May wrote:
|Jim wrote:
| >The most detailed research on the issue is a study by Dorothy Denning
| >and William Baugh investigating the extent to which crypto has
| >interfered with law enforcement's ability to get convictions: their
| >bottom line was that crypto has not in fact interfered: law enforcement
| >has been able to complete their investigations using other means.
| >There's no demonstrated need for Government Access to Crypto Keys
| >(GACK), so there's no need to compromise away our privacy.
| 
| Bluntly pu, "FUCK "DEMONSTRATED NEED"!"
| 
| And what if Denning and Baugh had reached other conclusions? (As well they
| might, next year, when crypto is more widely deployed.)

	Its a utilitarian, and useful argument to point out that the
Clipper Chick has been forced to change her position based on observed
reality.  Its not the basis of our moral argument, only pointing out
that the only academic to hold a position not in line with ours was
intellectually honest enough to say she's unsupported by the facts.

	This is not to say that crypto is ok as long as it doesn't
matter, or the police have legitamate needs that they may define, but
that when their own spokespeople reject them, its a powerful argument.

	Much as you rejoice in terrorist use of encryption, I rejoice
in being able to quote Dorothy Denning. :)

	(I have a great deal of respect for Dorothy Denning's
willingness to take and argue unpopular positions, and change her mind
when proven wrong.)

Adam

-- 
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
					               -Hume