From: uri@watson.ibm.com (Uri Blumenthal)
Subject: Re: Lead Balloons
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1992 20:43:22 GMT
Reply-To: uri@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: Are you cleared to know?

In article <1992Nov4.125819.1637@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu>, denning@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu writes:
|> While I 
|> have considerable faith in the goodness of humanity, I also recognize 
|> our frailty.  This goodness/frailty is not limited to people either 
|> inside or outside the government.  

The best way to deal with that "frailty" so far is: DON'T tempt
a person with power, if it can be avoided. Every record clearly
shows,  that whatever power a government  (any government) gets 
over it's subjects, becomes abused.

I don't know about the whole "humanity". But an individual, who
claims into that nice chair,  is likely to get corrupted and do
bad things. There is no reasons to invite him to do more damage,
than he can so far.


|> How best to deal with human
|> frailty is no doubt one of the great questions that will not be
|> solved by me or by cryptography.

That's why I wish you stayed with cryptography, rather than
try to "save" the government from dangers nobody yet sees.

Sorry for the harshness, but not for the contents.
 
|> While I recognize that the government has a long list of abuses,
|> Mr. Eichler's example being one of many, I am unconvinced that the
|> best way to deal with these abuses or by those performed by people
|> outside the government is by making it harder for law enforcers.

As several people showed already, that so-much-feared "new ditigal era"
isn't really going to make it harder for lawenforcer to go after EACH
PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL (using "traditional" techniques, as EME 
monitoring, bugging premises/cars/equipment/etc, and so on
and so forth). What it WILL make harder is LARGE-SCALE
spying on the masses.   

"Vacuum-cleaner" approachreally is likely to die out. Isn't law 
enforcement prohibited to use it anyway? So...?

|> As someone has said, "A society that cannot enforce its laws invites
|> disrespect for those laws."  But regulating crypto may not be a good
|> solution either unless we can come up with an acceptable means.

How much success did any government show in regulating ANY substance,
be it illegal information (Nazi and Soviet countries), rum, drugs,
guns, people smuggling, etc.? What makes you think, that crypto
case is any different? 

|> Someone asked whether John Gotti would have used encryption.  I don't
|> know, but he didn't.  Rumor is that these guys started their 
|> conversations with some sort of ritual: "Gee, do you suppose they're
|> listening? ..."  

OK, now rest assured he [or his successors] will (:-).
[And if not - they'll be easy game, so why bother
registering all of us good guys? :-]

|> The $45K per wiretap average came from the "Wiretap Report" for 1991.
|> It lists all wiretaps for the year -- well, at least the court-ordered
|> ones :-) 

The price does looks outrageous. I hope it serves also to limit wiretaps
to those really needed for the case [and autorized by the court :-].
-- 
Regards,
Uri.		uri@watson.ibm.com
------------
<Disclaimer>