Re: Denning vs. Gilmore
At 04:14 PM 7/29/96 +0100, Roderick Simpson wrote:
Today, Monday, July 29, Dorothy Denning begins her debate vs. John Gilmore over The Absolute Right to Privacy on Wired Online's Brain Tennis site. Do citizens of the world have an "unalienable right" to privacy - or are there reasons why governments ought to have access to our communications? This debate will run daily through August 7. Follow along at http://www.wired.com/braintennis/. To get into the debate yourself, go to:
http://www.hotwired.com/cgi-bin/interact/replies_all?msg.21655
An excerpt of Dorothy's first post today:
"I'm not ready to accept 'the cat is out of the bag.'
The Wicked Witch of the East wasn't "ready to accept" a house being dropped on her. Denning's personal desires are equally irrelevant.
Let's look for a way of enjoying the benefits of encryption without unnecessarily hindering the ability of law enforcement to perform its mission.
I consider the primary benefit of good encryption to be the "hindering the ability of law enforcement to perform" the particularly abusive "mission" they've chosen for themselves.
Let's use encryption for privacy, but also give law enforcement access to communications and computer files when there is probable cause and a judge has issued a court order.
Many if not most of us out here believe that the ("probable cause") system is abusive, and has all the prospects of continuing to be abusive in the future.
In some cases, that access must be surreptitious.
But some of us consider such access to be unconstitutional, however "useful" you may believe it to be. In the past, the government has had the extreme luxury of not being forced to convince the public of its "right" to wiretap. Now, the advance of technology is forcing the question of such approval to be answered, and the Denning-types are getting really worried that the public isn't going to give that approval. Tough! Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com
In some cases, that access must be surreptitious.
But some of us consider such access to be unconstitutional, however "useful" you may believe it to be. In the past, the government has had the extreme luxury of not being forced to convince the public of its "right" to wiretap.
Now, the advance of technology is forcing the question of such approval to be answered, and the Denning-types are getting really worried that the public isn't going to give that approval. Tough!
While I may not necessarily agree that government has never been forced to convince the public (some courts, acting as an agent of the public on Constitutional issues, have ruled that wire taps should only be allowed on the narrowest of basis to avoid breach of privacy), I do feel that you have stated the most important point in terms of privacy violations. It is clear that law enforcement has used intercepts much more than it has been legally allowed. Afterall, if they truly ask a judge (and they even have stream lined courts just for this purpose) for every intercept needed, then they do not have to worry about capacity or escrowed length limits, right? The point is that they ARE exceeding the official count of intercepts, and they ARE trying to intercept without warrants. That is why they are asking for all of this. In the face of this overwhelming evidence of abuse, I absolutely refuse to give my keys to anyone without my personal review of the "evidence" against me. Ern
participants (2)
-
Ernest Hua -
jim bell