"if you become a dangerous criminal," <> "innocent until proven guilty" At 10:39 AM 10/2/96 -0700, Declan McCullagh wrote:

[But how does one undo the dangerous criminals without violating the privacy rights of everyone else? --Declan] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 10:30:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Joe Shea <joeshea@netcom.com> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> Subject: Re: White House crypto proposal -- too little, too late

If you become a dangerous criminal, Declan, I think law enforcement does have the right to use key escrow to undo you. That has nothing to do with spying. You need to be a little more selective about your language, and to make distinctions a little more rationally than you do.

Best,

Joe Shea Editor-in-Chief The American Reporter joeshea@netcom.com http://www.newshare.com:9999

On Wed, 2 Oct 1996, Declan McCullagh wrote:

...

BTW, Joe, I'm still waiting for your response to my comments on why your endorsement of key escrow (GAK) is braindead. Or do you still think that the Feds should have the right to spy on my conversations, just like you thought that "porn isn't speech?"

-Declan

On Wed, 2 Oct 1996, Joe Shea wrote:

...

Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 09:47:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Joe Shea <joeshea@netcom.com> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com Subject: Re: White House crypto proposal -- too little, too late

Declan, how does your list work? Do you only publish comments that agree with you? I didn't see my first two, and this one only came with your response. Is this your version of freedom of the press, or what?

Joe Shea Editor-in-Chief The American Reporter joeshea@netcom.com http://www.newshare.com:9999

On Wed, 2 Oct 1996, Declan McCullagh wrote:

...

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 20:19:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu Cc: joeshea@netcom.com Subject: Re: White House crypto proposal -- too little, too late

[Joe, this may be yet another area where we disagree. It represents a power grab by law enforcement; the infrastructure is prone to failure and can be compromised; it's more government meddling and coercion and more restrictions on free speech; the Fed bureaucrats controlling this are vulnerable to special-interest lobbying; the Constitution gives the Federal government no right to impose such restrictions; the FBI has demonstrated that we can't trust the Feds with our most personal information; it violates an absolute right to privacy; and it's technically impractical for a good number of applications. --Declan]

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 15:57:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Joe Shea <joeshea@netcom.com> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> Cc: fight-censorship Subject: Re: FC: White House crypto proposal -- too little, too late

Declan's most recent piece makes much more sense than the earlier one. He is quite correct in emphasizing the future vulnerability of the encryption logarithms rather than centering on whether or not terrorists might use them. By making them impossible to crack without the key, and permitting the key to be available to appropriate law enforcement authorities when absolutely necessary, everyone's real needs are satisfied, I think. I enjoyed this report a lot.

Best,

Joe Shea Editor-in-Chief The American Reporter joeshea@netcom.com http://www.newshare.com:9999

_______________________ Regards, You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus. -Mark Twain Joseph Reagle http://rpcp.mit.edu/~reagle/home.html reagle@mit.edu E0 D5 B2 05 B6 12 DA 65 BE 4D E3 C1 6A 66 25 4E