IP: Re: just a thought on a cloudy day for the coming year

[David Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>]

Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 08:41:57 -0400
To: farber () central cis upenn edu (David Farber)
From: pcw () access digex net (Peter Wayner)




> > > Given the past history of this nation during elections --
> > > such a watergate etc, and given the increased use of the
> > > network to carry on politcal processes and coordination and
> > > given the difficulty of denying forged email, I wonder
> > > whether one of the best customers for PEM mail systems and
> > > PGP security will not be the very politicians that are
> > > attempting to outlaw good cryptography. Bet they would use
> > > as strong a key as they can reasonably find.


Several cops were testifying at one of the endless meetings where people
debate just what access the government should have toward keys. Naturally,
they liked their access to conversations and they wanted to keep it.
Someone pointed out that there are about 11 states that don't allow their
state and local police to use wiretaps. Someone asked the cops if anyone
had compare the "law abiding quotient" of these states with the ones that
have widespread wiretapping on tap. It was a loaded question because many
states that banned it were Southern and rural, while many who embraced it
were Northern, densely populated and bullet-ridden.


One cop said, in an off-the-cuff remark, that the cynical explanation for
why these states forbid wiretapping is that the State Legislatures realize
that electronic surveillance is the one way that they can be caught taking
bribes. Being in the legislature is the world's oldest information-only
profession. If there is no surreptious recording then there is no evidence
of bribery. Ergo lawfulness increases!