From: pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Letter protesting proposed FBI Digital Telephony bill
Date: 26 Sep 92 07:46:44 GMT
Organization: Totally Unorganized

This letter that was posted looks like an excellent response.  There
is one thing I think should be considered - the fact that if law
enforcement wants a LEGITIMATE (court ordered) tap, the personnel at
the telecommunications provider can set it up, since whatever form the
traffic is in, it has to be converted from and back to human usable
form.  With a proper order, there would be no problem in getting the
tap set up.

Where the existing situation would cause a problem is for ILLEGAL
taps, taps where the authorities don't want the telecommunications
provider to be involved, since they would most likely refuse if the
tap were illegal.

The proposals for these changes are needed only if the intent is to
CIRCUMVENT the law, to eavesdrop on whoever they want whenever they
want, for whatever reason - for example persons whose only crime is to
have 'incorrect' views on issues of the day.  There are folks in
government who would be all too happy to be able to fatten the
dossiers kept on folks who have ideas or agendas deemed 'out of step'
with what is considered proper, even if the philosophy excludes any
possibility of violence or other harmful activity.

Worse, the FBI proposal demonstrates either contempt for the average
citizen or extreme arrogance in expecting the telecommunications
subscriber TO FOOT THE BILL FOR THEIR OWN SURVELLANCE!!!

When one combines this proposal with the desire of government to use
force of law to keep encryption methods weak and easily compromised
for the convenience of government snoops, it makes me think that
Orwell was accurate in his view of the future, erring only in the date
when it comes to pass.  The whole thing sounds like something one
would read about the KGB imposing on the inmates of the now-defunct
USSR.

When one combines these proposals with other laws our 'representatives'
wish to foist on us, ranging from totally disarming all but the agencies
directly under their control (thus giving the government a monopoly on
coercive force) to the civil forfeiture laws, one is not surprised that
the government wants the people totally disarmed!  What they have in
store for the citizens of the USA seems to be a situation where the
people are a resource to be exploited for their convenience, to blindly
obey all their orders, instead of what it is supposed to be, a government
with the CONSENT of the governed.   They would need tools like these
wiretap proposals to pull this off, to find and deal with 'troublemakers',
and they would most certainly want to make sure that the governed lacks
the means to revoke that 'consent of the governed'.

If reducing crime and such is their desire (crime being defined where
one tramples on the rights of another, usually for their personal gain)
what is wrong with good old police work:  First get evidence a crime
has been committed, some rough idea of probable suspects, then the
necessary warrants (requires having a judge agree a crime has been
committed and that the subjects of the warrant are probably the ones
that did the deed) and getting the taps, or doing the searches, or making
the arrests - ALL WITH DUE PROCESS.  For legitimate law enforcement of
Constitutional laws, these end runs around that damned inconvenient
Constitution are not necessary.

All through history, tyrranies have been hatched by taking short cuts
on individual rights, ALWAYS for some 'noble' cause.  I don't know about
other folks, but these proposals, and others sure to come should have
every warning bell and light sounding and flashing.  These proposals
offer absolutely NO benefit to society at large, public welfare, or
individual safety or security.  NONE.  They do offer all sorts of benefits
to folks who want to get around the Constitution in order to eliminate,
intimidate, and suppress persons with 'awkward' ideas or who gather
information that would be 'embarrassing'.  Does anyone, for example,
think that the congresscritters would have VOLUNTEERED the information
that they were all writing rubber checks, planning on bailing out their
buddies when they suck banks dry, etc., until its too late for public
outcry to have any effect?

And just *TRY* to find out the details of the plans agencies like FEMA
have for us if a severe emergency or the right situation were to occur,
perhaps people starting to protest loudly and overtly in many places at
the same time - situations where martial law might be considered.  Why
is that information such a closely guarded secret?

Maybe I'm just a paranoid alarmist, but so far things I have worried
would happen HAVE happened.  That is not very reassuring.

-- 
pat@rwing.uucp                                  (Pat Myrto),  Seattle, WA
                      If all else fails, try:
         ...!uunet!{pilchuck, polari}!rwing!pat
WISDOM:    "Travelling unarmed is like boating without a life jacket" 
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk