At 04:27 PM 6/18/96 +0200, TM Peters wrote:

Compuserve Online Today Daily Edition, 15 June 1996:

Attorney General Janet Reno is advancing a plan to establish a new agency overseeing all digital encryption, saying that would make it tougher for criminals and terrorists to use the Internet to carry out crimes. [...] Reno added, "We look only to make existing law apply to new technology,"

Such a claim is bogus. "existing law" already "applies" to new technology. It's just that this only means that cops think they have a right to wiretap. It does not mean that they are able to usefully understand the meaning of what they hear.

adding new computer programs designed to crack the new complicated encryptions take too long to be useful to law enforcement.

Like a billion years too long, huh?

"Some of our most important prosecutions have depended on wire taps."

But is the average citizen substantially impacted by crimes that would be assisted by good encryption? Probably not.

She also said registration of keys might end up being a worldwide requirement, since the Internet is used increasingly for international communication, commerce, and criminal enterprise.

She forgot to mention REVOLUTION.

Reno told the group that effectively regulating electronic encryption will depend on finding a balance between protecting privacy interests while stopping criminals from cashing in on the new technology.

I see no need for a "balance." I think that the advent of good encryption has the effect of increasing the security of individuals.

"If we do our job right citizens will enjoy the Information Age without being victimized" by high technology, Reno said.

Maybe she should have said, "without toppling the government-employed parasites from their positions of power."

United Press International Charles Bowen

Another one of those organizations threatened by media-bypass. Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com