DirFBI: Danger of Encryption

The New York Times, July 12, 1998:

Danger of Encryption

To the Editor:

Re "Privacy in the Digital Age" (editorial, July 6): No law 
enforcement agency is "trying hard to prevent the growing 
use of encryption." But encryption represents a serious 
public safety concern. We are open to any solution that 
recognizes that it is the ability to collect electronic 
evidence that has allowed us to prevent airliners from 
being bombed and to put major drug dealers behind bars.

Key escrow is one possible solution. There are others, and 
certainly a statutory scheme can be devised that will all 
but eliminate any risk of abuse by law enforcement. But if 
we do not allow for court-ordered access, for the first time 
in the history of this country a court order for seizure of 
evidence will be an absolute nullity.

We want to work with industry on a real solution, recognizing 
that those who acquire encryption over the Internet or from 
abroad naively make assumptions about the security it affords. 
We are not fighting encryption, but we know what will happen 
if technology cannot be made to work for law enforcement as 
it works for criminals and terrorists.    

Louis J. FREEH
Dir., Federal Bureau of Investigation
Washington, July 10,1998

On Sun, 12 Jul 1998, John Young wrote:

> The New York Times, July 12, 1998:
>
	[...]
 
> but eliminate any risk of abuse by law enforcement. But if 
> we do not allow for court-ordered access, for the first time 
> in the history of this country a court order for seizure of 
> evidence will be an absolute nullity.

	This is an interesting claim.  Surely it's only been
	in this century that law enforcement has ever had 
	the kind of systematic access to communication that presently
	does.  I'd say Louis Freeh is lacking in the history department
	if he really believes that Americans have never possessed
	as much privacy as strong crypto offers.

	I'd also say he's missed a few history classes if he 
	thinks that the world will blow up without him listening
	in.

							-Xcott

Actually, his statement was interesting and a masterpiece.  While it is
true that the access to communications is recent, the court orders for
evidence have been around.  What he "failed to mention" was that they have
access currently which is unheard of in the past and that it is only that
slice of life that would have "absolute nullity".

Gee, don't they teach Propoganda 101 anymore?

PHM

Xcott Craver wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Jul 1998, John Young wrote:
>
> > The New York Times, July 12, 1998:
> >
>         [...]
>
> > but eliminate any risk of abuse by law enforcement. But if
> > we do not allow for court-ordered access, for the first time
> > in the history of this country a court order for seizure of
> > evidence will be an absolute nullity.
>
>         This is an interesting claim.  Surely it's only been
>         in this century that law enforcement has ever had
>         the kind of systematic access to communication that presently
>         does.  I'd say Louis Freeh is lacking in the history department
>         if he really believes that Americans have never possessed
>         as much privacy as strong crypto offers.
>
>         I'd also say he's missed a few history classes if he
>         thinks that the world will blow up without him listening
>         in.
>
>                                                         -Xcott

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In <35AA4A36.1EB56250@acm.org>, on 07/13/98 
   at 10:56 AM, "Paul H. Merrill" <paulmerrill@acm.org> said:

>Actually, his statement was interesting and a masterpiece.  While it is
>true that the access to communications is recent, the court orders for
>evidence have been around.  What he "failed to mention" was that they
>have access currently which is unheard of in the past and that it is only
>that slice of life that would have "absolute nullity".

>Gee, don't they teach Propoganda 101 anymore?

Sure they do, it's part of the on the job training for all government
employees.

- -- 
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III  http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii
Geiger Consulting    Cooking With Warp 4.0

Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
OS/2 PGP 5.0 at: http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii/pgp.html
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
 
Tag-O-Matic: Dos: Venerable.  Windows: Vulnerable.  OS/2: Viable.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a-sha1
Charset: cp850
Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000

iQCVAwUBNaonpY9Co1n+aLhhAQEgMAQAy+xSgY6m3cAS4M3ccqqNgGYA4uuSBNE6
Ik4SzG+GW2I0whBcqcS4hICPCgTKIMqDFvZ6dL2MLnV2HeFnpgwhVyAETa/Sd7rj
CwEDiUqw38rUzUmahjFR1VWBqe90SjWBklLSMlcwIoigreV5QusutU4izadnmD0e
jKO+VzFu15U=
=P8VS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----