Re: GAK/weak crypto rationale?
intercepts requested and authorized in the past year. As I recall, the number was quite small - around 12K [?]. Someone had found this out through an FOIA request, perhaps, (my recollection of it is poor). It was
I think it's about 1200.
not a large number, anyway. I must conclude that the actual number of intercepts is much, much larger than they are saying, and that they must be getting what they perceive to be good intel from all this snooping.
A more cautious conclusion would be would be that the importance (to the LEA's) of the busts made with crypto is much larger than the numbers suggest. You could interpret that a lot of ways: I suspect that high-profile career-enhancing cases are highly dependent on wiretaps.
intercepts requested and authorized in the past year. As I recall, the number was quite small - around 12K [?]. Someone had found this out through an FOIA request, perhaps, (my recollection of it is poor). It was
I think it's about 1200.
not a large number, anyway. I must conclude that the actual number of intercepts is much, much larger than they are saying, and that they must be getting what they perceive to be good intel from all this snooping.
A more cautious conclusion would be would be that the importance (to the LEA's) of the busts made with crypto is much larger than the numbers suggest. You could interpret that a lot of ways: I suspect that high-profile career-enhancing cases are highly dependent on wiretaps.
It could also be argued that the number of busts and wire taps will go up dramatically as more and more people begin to use communications in more integrated ways with thier life and career. It is kind of a fallacy, but communications does seem to be a rapidly growing market. I imagine the folks who push for that sort of crap are thinking of the future, else we'd already have it.
On Tue, 12 Sep 1995, Andrew Spring wrote:
intercepts requested and authorized in the past year. As I recall, the number was quite small - around 12K [?]. Someone had found this out through an FOIA request, perhaps, (my recollection of it is poor). It was
I think it's about 1200.
not a large number, anyway. I must conclude that the actual number of intercepts is much, much larger than they are saying, and that they must be getting what they perceive to be good intel from all this snooping.
A more cautious conclusion would be would be that the importance (to the LEA's) of the busts made with crypto is much larger than the numbers suggest. You could interpret that a lot of ways: I suspect that high-profile career-enhancing cases are highly dependent on wiretaps.
No question. Many high profile public corruption, Mafia, and high-level narcotics trafficking cases are made with wiretaps. In our district, we managed to convict almost 20 people in an investigation of the state legislature, including the now-former Speaker of the House and > 6 other legislators. Bribing lobbyists took hits, etc. Particularly effective were the court-approved video and audio tapes of the Speaker taking a bribe in exchange for certain action on legislation and responding to the bribing party: "Well bless your heart." That has become the office's mantra. I understand the same was true of the South Carolina state legislature investigation (wiretaps). A number of previous investigations of our legislature failed over the past 15 years as the stonewall held. Wiretaps, hidden microphones, and hidden cameras put corrupt politicians (I know - redundant) out of business. I don't doubt that wiretaps may sometimes be abused despite the incredibly onerous review process, but they have positive aspects, too. Not a lawyer on the Net, although I play one in real life. ********************************************************** Flame way! I get treated worse in person every day!!
Brian Davis <bdavis@thepoint.net> writes: No question. Many high profile public corruption, Mafia, and high-level... ...In our district, we managed to convict almost 20 people... Particularly effective were the court-approved video and audio tapes of...
I don't doubt that wiretaps may sometimes be abused despite the incredibly onerous review process, but they have positive aspects, too.
In how many of these cases did you fail to get the necessary information because of encryption? Has this proportion been changing over the years? Jim Gillogly Hevensday, 21 Halimath S.R. 1995, 23:06
On Tue, 12 Sep 1995, Jim Gillogly wrote:
Brian Davis <bdavis@thepoint.net> writes: No question. Many high profile public corruption, Mafia, and high-level... ...In our district, we managed to convict almost 20 people... Particularly effective were the court-approved video and audio tapes of...
I don't doubt that wiretaps may sometimes be abused despite the incredibly onerous review process, but they have positive aspects, too.
In how many of these cases did you fail to get the necessary information because of encryption? Has this proportion been changing over the years?
I wasn't personally involved in any of the cases, but I susupect the answer re encryption is zero. There was the time the FBI agent failed to push the record button, however. My response was to the wiretap correlation to career-making cases. I don't believe encryption is widespread enough yet to be a serious problem in the Title III area. It is a potential problem, though, as encryption (rightfully) spreads. The question I am debating with myself, with all of your help, is what the policy "ought to be." Even if I ultimately come down in my own mind on the Cypherpunks side of the line, understand that, as far as policy goes (and, hell, everything else for that matter), I'm a nobody. But I try to make up my own mind about what is right. EBD
Jim Gillogly Hevensday, 21 Halimath S.R. 1995, 23:06
Not a lawyer on the Net, although I play one in real life. ********************************************************** Flame way! I get treated worse in person every day!!
participants (4)
-
Andrew.Spring＠ping.be -
Brian Davis -
Ian S. Nelson -
Jim Gillogly