Re: NYT op-ed May 8

[peb@netcom.com (Paul E. Baclace)]

I'm writing up a response to the Gelernter editorial and have 
the following
notes...if you have any comments, please send me mail so I can revise and
add to the argument. Also, I recall an NSA spokesperson said something
that amounted to an admission that Clipper would not stop the smart
terrorist or somesuch in response to a question at a press conference.
Does anyone know what snippet that is (unfortunately, my archive tapes
are inaccessible right now). This would be a nice quote to include.

Paul E. Baclace
peb@netcom.com
--------------------------------------------
What Gelernter does not mention:

We have wiretaps today and he still got bombed.  (I deplore 
the Ludite terrorist who allegedly did the bombing and I am not
unaffected by this in circuitous ways...)

Some crimes are always hard to stop, regardless of technology.  Note
that arson and serial murders still happen and we have a free society.
Only a police state would mitigate such crimes, but who would guard the
guards? 


The real decision that people need to make about privacy regards
balance of power.  Privacy is power.  Setting up laws that require
privacy to be violable for all time to come is giving up the most
important non-enumerated right.

People who live under oppressive governments need privacy.  There is 
no guarantee that the U.S. government will never abuse its power.

The digital telephony bill and Clipper initiative, if both are passed,
will pave the way for desktop wiretaps.  A warrant could be requested
and granted by a judge by electronic mail and then the wiretap itself
could be turned on remotely. It could be accomplished in minutes after
the required forms are filled out.  Wiretaps will become cheaper and 
faster.  This will be very tempting to abuse.

Remember that Nixon kept a list of enemies and had them wiretapped.  
This brings into question the whole warrant issuing process and has
nothing to do with technology.

Prediction:

If Clipper is used widely one day, the first time a terrorist blows up a 
building and uses unbreakable encryption in order to pull it off, the
government will not be able to resist a new effort to ban cryptography.
Since neither the Digital Telephony bill or Clipper will stop the smart
terrorist, it is only a matter of time.

Cryptography amounts to inventing a private language.  A ban on
cryptography would thus violate the First Amendment.  

As people conduct more of their life on the information superhighway, 
privacy will become more important over time. The passing of the 
digital telephony bill put in place cheap mechanisms for spying
on citizens that a corrupt government could use.