Subject: Re: [Raven] Executive Power / Opinion Toss

From: "Richard Payne" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 21:21:05 -0500

<scenario>

Richard Payne in Holland. Pulls himself, soaking wet, over a dike, collapses
into a heap, pulls out his communicator, and says "Beam me up Scotty,
there's no intelligent life down here!"

</scenario>

Just kidding.

ch*fr*n wrote:

> Our government has to hire people to do work. If the hired
> people ask for means they should get them or our government
> should hire other people that don't ask for those means.
>
> So law makers have to decide if they give stronger means
> and they simply have to if the required work isn't done.

This more or less misses all the constitutional discussion we had a couple
of weeks ago and simply asserts the sovereignty of the civil service.
Fortunately, what politicians can do in many countries is limited by a
constitution, no matter what pressure group has their ear. "Work" and
"required" are based on some person's assessment, not an objective fact, and
are not permitted to trump individual rights in a constitutional democracy.

I suggest again: based on the response on this list, you need way more
factual backup to convince people that your view of the LEA position is
correct.

Here's a way to get started: Assume that I'm a wiretapping skeptic. Leave
the Internet out of it. Assume no wiretapping on POTS today. How do you
convince me that wiretapping POTS is right?

ch*fr*n also wrote:

>> 2) If it is so dangerous to allow private communication on the Internet,
how
>> do you avoid the conclusion that it's equally dangerous to allow private
>> communication face-to-face?
>
>No. Because there is no broadcast effect, no anonymity.
>Simple and very old law enforcement techniques can obtain
>enough information to keep crime low enough.

Now this implies a few interesting propositions as consequences:

1) The scary crimes ch*fr*n is worried about must be taking place purely in
cyberspace, because if they took place in meatspace, the simple and very old
law enforcement techniques would catch them. Rules out murder and most
coercive crime, as well as drug-dealing, I think. What are the scary
pure-cyberspace crimes that ch*fr*n is worried about?

2) Anonymous speech, even political speech, is impermissible. Good-bye wall
posters!

3) Everybody always knows the full name, address, and ID number of everyone
they talk to. Better yet, the police know it too.

4) If broadcast and anonymity are the _real_ issues, then tapping is not
required since traffic analysis suffices. HOORAY! NO TAPBOX! Unless, of
course, there's a law that people can't speak foreign languages.

I don't think consequences 2 and 3 are plausible, although I sure like 4. I
await enightenment on 1.

Richard Payne

_______________________________________________
raven mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/raven

---

From: "chefren" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 21:14:48 +0100

> factual backup to convince people that your view of the LEA position is

My view is uninportant, it's the view of the democratically 
chosen lawmakers that counts. If they thinkt the people who 
work for them need more means they have to get more means.

> convince me that wiretapping POTS is right?

Probably I cannot as you cannot convince me vice versa. And 
since the basic problem is still there, criminal 
organization, we have to solve this democratically. Well in 
The Netherlands our government has decided a long time ago 
law enforcement may tap under =very special= conditions.

> pure-cyberspace crimes that ch*fr*n is worried about?

In the past I have given an example already. If a person 
posts PGP encrypted messages to usenet Police has no chance 
to find out who reads the messages and what's in it. So a 
person using PGP can be in australia and organize cocaine 
transports without any proof of it. OK he has to get the 
money and distribute it but that's pretty simple. Het can 
even hand over the money to someone and arrange a meeting 
between that person and the one who has to receive it while 
they pass each other on a railwaystation. This is all 
traceless.

> 2) Anonymous speech, even political speech, is impermissible. Good-bye wall

There is a lot of speeche impermissible. Calling "fire" in 
a theatre is impermissible, even in the US the freedom of 
speech isn't absolute.

> they talk to. Better yet, the police know it too.

If regulation of encryption will further enter this world 
that might be an option.
 
> course, there's a law that people can't speak foreign languages.

I have never denied encryption should be regulated too.

> I don't think consequences 2 and 3 are plausible, although I sure like 4. I

Why "HOORAY! NO TAPBOX!", are you against auditable taps IF 
democratically made laws state taps may be set?

(I still sometimes think, there are a lot of terrorists 
here...)

+++chefren

= =
ii.nl ontwerpt, bouwt én onderhoudt websites
100 Euro aanbrengpremie: http://www.ii.nl/premie