Re: The right to be secure (fwd Computerworld article)

[J. Michael Diehl <mdiehl@triton.unm.edu>]

According to Paul Baclace:
> >>   typically a court order, to both key escrow authorities.
> >"Typically", of course, means "not always", and it's coupled with the phrase
> I think they must be implicitly refering to the anti terrorist act
> which allows surveillence without a court order if national security
> is involved or if foreign nationals are involved, etc.

Now this is news to me.  You mean that they can listen to me if they can 
rationalize that there is a threat to national security?

Here's a scenerio.  John Q. Public HAS a copy of pgp and some LEA knows it.  It
must be that he's some kind of subversive. Therefore, he is a threat to national
security.  It is therefore legal to infringe on his rights?  Maybe this is a bit
of exageration...maybe it's not....


+-----------------------+-----------------------------+---------+
| J. Michael Diehl ;-)  | I thought I was wrong once. | PGP KEY |
| mdiehl@triton.unm.edu |   But, I was mistaken.      |available|
| mike.diehl@fido.org   |                             | Ask Me! |
| (505) 299-2282        +-----------------------------+---------+
|                                                               |
+------"I'm just looking for the opportunity to be -------------+
|            Politically Incorrect!"   <Me>                     |
+-----If codes are outlawed, only criminals wil have codes.-----+
+----Is Big Brother in your phone?  If you don't know, ask me---+