From: Roger.Franz@p0.f16.n8012.z86.toadnet.org (Roger Franz)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Registered Keys - why the need?
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 92 20:25:42 cdt
Organization: FidoNet node 86:8012/16.0 - Java Shoppe, Manchester MO


 > D: >>>The reason I made the proposal is because I am concerned that 
 > D: we may be facing a major crisis in law enforcement.  I expect 
 > D: many of you will say "that's wonderful" but I don't see it that 
 > D: way. 
 
 That figures. 
 
 > D: I apologize for the insult.  What led me to say what I 
 > D: said was that many people had said things that I 
 > D: interpreted as disrespectful of all law enforcement. 
 
 There's probably a reason for that. Many of us do not 
 respect such shining examples of law enforcement as 
 the Steve Jackson raids (he still hasn't gotten his 
 computers -- seized as "evidence" with no charges 
 filed -- back from the SS [is there significance to 
 those initials?]), the assault on Rodney King, and the 
 war on civil rights commonly characerized as the "War 
 on Drugs." Mr. J. Edgar Hoover used the FBI to further 
 his own ends and the ends of those in power at the 
 time; why should law enforcement be the tool by which 
 political opponents are beaten (maybe literally)? 
 
 Or, to put it another way -- many of us do not trust 
 the modern Gestapo that calls itself "law 
 enforcement." 
 
 > D: > with what she calls "a major crisis in law enforcement".  Since 
 > D: when did inability of law enforcement to eavesdrop on anybody's 
 > D: private communications at their whim, become a "crisis"? 
 
 > D: effect of COURT-AUTHORIZED taps.  According to the FBI, they 
 > D: have been essential in preventing serious criminal activity 
 
 Along with the right to privacy. 
 
 > D: conducted by the FBI alone led to 7,324 convictions, almost $300 
 > D: million in fines being levied, over $750 million in recoveries, 
 > D: restitutions, and court-ordered forfeitures, and close to $2 
 
 How many seizures that never went to court? How many 
 people's rights to protection from search and seizure 
 without due process of law were violated because the 
 FBI "suspected" crime and seized the people's 
 property without warrant or evidence? 
 
 "You've got too much money. You're therefore a 
 criminal. I'm taking your money. You have to sue me 
 and prove you're innocent of having too much money in 
 order to get it back." Yeah, right. 
 
 > D: to the FBI, electronic surveillance has been critical in identifying 
 > D: and then dismantling major drug trafficking organizations.  Although 
 
 Of course, we have only the gov't's word for that. The 
 feds _never_ make mistakes. 
 
 > D: breaking and entering.  This is not necessarily better in terms 
 > D: of protecting liberties and privacy. 
 
 Wait a minute. You're saying that invading someone's 
 right to privacy with a tap he doesn't know about is 
 better than invading someone's right to privacy with 
 one he _might_ know about?  That's insane; like saying 
 it's better to nuke somebody than to kill him with a 
 gun. Either way, he's dead. Either way you invade the 
 right to privacy, it's still gone. 
 
 > D: the service providers are to activate the taps -- with a court 
 > D: order -- and then route the bits to law enforcement. 
 
 Okay, so they're forcing other people with better 
 things to do to do what they don't have the brains to 
 do in the first place. All right! Nazi America, here 
 we come! 
 
 > D: I am absolutely opposed to any form of large scale surveillance. 
 
Certainly doesn't sound like it. 
 
 > D: do believe in the process of getting warrants and I do support 
 > D: wiretapping when a warrant has been obtained.  I am not in favor 
 > D: of relaxing the requirements to get a warrant.  I don't remember 
 
But what you're proposing will do that. 
 
 > D: on our suggestion or if they'll suggest another.  Are there other 
 > D: approaches that would give you greater assurance against the 
 > D: government and still allow for meeting the legitimate needs of 
 > D: law enforcement?  If so, I'd love to hear them. 
 
 Law enforcement's "legitimate needs" would best be met 
 by reducing the number of regulations they have to 
 enforce, decriminalizing many of the victimless acts 
 (prostitution, drugs, encryption), and prosecuting 
 to the fullest extent of the law the insane violations 
 of citizens' rights by law enforcement officers (the 
 "vitamin raid" in Tacoma, Washington comes to mind). 
 
 Key registration would be stupid. I'm amazed that 
 anybody intelligent would actually suggest such an 
 idiotic idea. Key registration would allow the 
 government to pick up anybody who registered a key, 
 for trumped-up charges. That's why the Swiss don't 
 give out bank account numbers -- somebody abused the 
 system way back when. 
 
 Furthermore, who says the criminals would register 
 their keys if registration were required? If they did, 
 they'd be stupid. They're already breaking one law -- 
 why worry about another? 
 
 Roger 

--- Opus-CBCS 1.99.13
 * Origin: Bob and Rog's Java Shoppe (86:8012/16.0)
--  
Roger Franz - via Toadnet/UUCP Gateway 86:86/200
UUCP: ....!wupost!8012!16.0!Roger.Franz
INTERNET: Roger.Franz@p0.f16.n8012.z86.toadnet.org