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

[Adam Shostack <adam@homeport.org>]

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