Re: Clipper and Traffic Analysis
The reason I ask is, I have this sense that one reason the government likes Clipper is that the Law Enforcement Access Field enables agents to draw inferences about who's talking to whom and what they're saying, even without decrypting the actual communications.
Is it true that law enforcement can obtain phone records from the phone company simply by asking? Or do they need a supena(sp)? It would not surprise me in the least to hear someday that the government will allow law enforcement to record LEAFs without having to obtain a warrant for a wiretap. If Clipper becomes widespread, and most conversations are encrypted, the government might conveniently redefine the term "wiretap" to mean "decrypting a Clipper conversation". This would open it up for the government to continuously monitor and record LEAFs, probably via the soon to be mandated "wiretap" capabilities the FBI is pushing for. "After all, the LEAF is just the electronic equivalent of your phone record. This new definition of "wiretap" does not give law enforcement any new capabilities. Since the actual contents of the conversation are encrypted, there is no invasion of privicy. We're just trying to keep up with the latest technological advances." Jim_Miller@suite.com
Speaking of phone records and such, btw, AT&T keeps phone records for quite a long time. About half a year or so my girlfriend visited her relatives in Hong Kong and I called her there to save them some major money. A few months ago, I get a letter/offer from AT&T saying that I could save over xxx% on calls to HK, Taiwan, etc... Now, I'm a white boy and my name would give them absolutely no hint of having relatives or friends in Hong Kong. Obviously they keep records for waaaay far back, and keep them in use!!! If they use'em for advertising, you can bet they use them for other shady "law-enforcement" type info for cops, etc....
participants (2)
-
jim@bilbo.suite.com -
rarachel@prism.poly.edu