[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GAK/weak crypto rationale?
On Tue, 12 Sep 1995, Jim Gillogly wrote:
>
> > Brian Davis <[email protected]> writes:
> > No question. Many high profile public corruption, Mafia, and high-level...
> > ...In our district, we managed to convict almost 20 people...
> > Particularly effective were the court-approved video and audio tapes of...
>
> > I don't doubt that wiretaps may sometimes be abused despite the
> > incredibly onerous review process, but they have positive aspects, too.
>
> In how many of these cases did you fail to get the necessary information
> because of encryption? Has this proportion been changing over the years?
I wasn't personally involved in any of the cases, but I susupect the
answer re encryption is zero. There was the time the FBI agent failed to
push the record button, however.
My response was to the wiretap correlation to career-making cases. I
don't believe encryption is widespread enough yet to be a serious problem
in the Title III area. It is a potential problem, though, as encryption
(rightfully) spreads. The question I am debating with myself, with all
of your help, is what the policy "ought to be."
Even if I ultimately come down in my own mind on the Cypherpunks side of
the line, understand that, as far as policy goes (and, hell, everything
else for that matter), I'm a nobody. But I try to make up my own mind
about what is right.
EBD
> > Jim Gillogly
> Hevensday, 21 Halimath S.R. 1995, 23:06
>
Not a lawyer on the Net, although I play one in real life.
**********************************************************
Flame way! I get treated worse in person every day!!