Re: GAK

[Mac Norton <mnorton@cavern.uark.edu>]

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.