Re: You want to read MY e-mail?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- bdavis@thepoint.net (Brian Davis) shared with the world:
On Sat, 20 Jan 1996, Scott Staedeli wrote:
from the Nando Times-
DENVER (Jan 20, 1996 01:16 a.m. EST) -- A college student's request to look at the electronic mail of several high-profile state politicians got lawmakers' attention Friday.
... OK, if _I_ can't read your e-mail Mr. Legislator, why should you be able to read _mine_?
The Colorado state legislature has nothing to do with federal wiretapping laws and with federal laws relating to encryption.
Mostly true. But state governments and state politicians have been naughty as well. Certain southern governors in the 50's and 60's spring immediately to mind. However, I think "an eye for an eye" is the wrong approach in the first place. There's an opportunity for education here, and progress.
Rather than the "government is inconsistent and bad" spin, why not "Colorado legislators and the Colorado governor agree that privacy is paramount in electronic communications. In opposing a request for blanket access to their private electronic mail, they necessarily oppose federal attempts to have access to all electronic mail, once again showing that Washington is out of touch with the rest of the country.
This is clever, but I don't think it works. There is a legitimate public interest here. Even if there's nothing incriminating in the email messages themselves, the questions of how much government business is conducted electronically, and how much non-government business (personal matters, political fund-raising) is conducted on publicly funded computers on government time are legitimate. Pertsonally, I'd be reluctant to peep into every message ever sent on a government computer -- it's too voyeuristic for my tastes. I'm especially thinking about that poor staffer who was grilled by the Whitewater Committee about one use of the word "bastard" in an unrelated email message to a friend that had been deleted years before. It doesn't seem right to grep for out-of-context soundbytes. Not that the new book "White House Email" isn't good for hours of entertainment. I'd like to see politicians put on official notice that all email on publicly owned computers is public property, though it would be hard to draw the line where politicians and political appointees end and the innocent line employee begins. If the politicians end up using crypto on government computers, great -- maybe they'd start to "get it." If the politicians want to open accounts with outside ISPs on their own (or their political party's) dime, great -- that's what a lot of other people on this list have had to do. Of course if some politician starts using an outside account for official business (and only then), then that account becomes fair game for public disclosure as well. It's a matter of ethics and accountability. Because politicians have not yet been put on official notice that this is the policy, though, I would not endorse making this policy retroactive and grepping all their email for dirt, unless the public has something like probable cause to do so. Next year, sure, it's all public record. Politicians should be educated that privacy without strong encryption is illusory anyway. Making a law that the public can't read their email simply isn't going to work. It's unenforceable. Sure it'll slow down the rate of public disclosure a bit. Still, some disgruntled ex-employee, or some Woodward & Bernstein type, or Jim Bell :-), is bound to get through. Scandals long to be free.
Parts of the federal government are catching on, however. The U.S. Commerce Department recently agreed that federal attempts to eavesdrop on electronic transmissions counterproductive in that they are causing problems for U.S. companies which create computer programs designed to allow secure use of the Internet to engage in private discussions and secure commerce. Estimates the dollar value of exports lost range up to $xxx, and continued chilling of U.S. programmers will give foreign programmers the chance to catch up in a field where U.S. expertise presently leads the world. ...."
Needs to be re-written and juiced up, but you get the idea.
Might play to the right crowd (for example, preaching to the choir here), but sounds like a non sequitur to me. Not that clever non sequiturs aren't useful. By the way, I read something about something similar happening in California. The new Republican Assembly "leadership" was trying to hold the computers of the previous Democtatic "leadership" in escrow so that they could look for dirt. Anyone know the outcome of that? - -rich - --- [This message has been signed by an auto-signing service. A valid signature means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the signature and forwarded.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Gratis auto-signing service iQBFAwUBMQH7yioZzwIn1bdtAQHC/wF8DHUhQpWkNAE8bVHeB9zUbXG7ju2Y1+Bo LHsVK6M4Qwd8Q2HMbaMe2/y5xBpryyVh =A+29 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Sun, 21 Jan 1996, Rich Graves wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
bdavis@thepoint.net (Brian Davis) shared with the world:
On Sat, 20 Jan 1996, Scott Staedeli wrote:
from the Nando Times- ... OK, if _I_ can't read your e-mail Mr. Legislator, why should you be able to read _mine_?
The Colorado state legislature has nothing to do with federal wiretapping laws and with federal laws relating to encryption.
Mostly true. But state governments and state politicians have been naughty as well. Certain southern governors in the 50's and 60's spring immediately to mind.
However, I think "an eye for an eye" is the wrong approach in the first place. There's an opportunity for education here, and progress.
Rather than the "government is inconsistent and bad" spin, why not "Colorado legislators and the Colorado governor agree that privacy is paramount in electronic communications. In opposing a request for blanket access to their private electronic mail, they necessarily oppose federal attempts to have access to all electronic mail, once again showing that Washington is out of touch with the rest of the country.
This is clever, but I don't think it works. There is a legitimate public interest here. Even if there's nothing incriminating in the email messages themselves, the questions of how much government business is conducted electronically, and how much non-government business (personal matters, political fund-raising) is conducted on publicly funded computers on government time are legitimate.
I agree that there is a legitimate public interest in the records (recall the dispute when the White House planned to delete all emails, leaving no backups, during a change of Administration). That doesn't mean that spin can't be placed on the news. What if Congress decided to reduce its salary by 28% and exempt its members from filing tax returns -- to save wear and tear on IRS computers and service centers? My point, however, is that privacy advocates can, and should, use their own equivalent of the Four Horsemen (tm) in making their arguments to the masses. I can't recall a single statement as short and catchy as the pornographers, terrorists, drug dealers, and money launderers argument the FBI uses. Tim's (?) "Four Horsemen" idea cleverly attempts to turn the argument on its head, but I fear that his implicit statment will be lost on those with less background on why privacy is important. Demagoguery frequently works, even if it can be distasteful. And short catchy ideas sell. Remember that Miami Vice was described in the beginning stages as "MTV Cops" and the network bought.
... Because politicians have not yet been put on official notice that this is the policy, though, I would not endorse making this policy retroactive and grepping all their email for dirt, unless the public has something like probable cause to do so. Next year, sure, it's all public record.
Should the same policy apply to altavista? (I recognize the difference, just throwing grenades!)
Politicians should be educated that privacy without strong encryption is illusory anyway. Making a law that the public can't read their email simply isn't going to work. It's unenforceable. Sure it'll slow down the rate of ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ??? I'm assuming the email was in a closed system, not on the net ...
public disclosure a bit. Still, some disgruntled ex-employee, or some Woodward & Bernstein type, or Jim Bell :-), is bound to get through.
Scandals long to be free.
Parts of the federal government are catching on, however. The U.S. Commerce Department recently agreed that federal attempts to eavesdrop on electronic transmissions counterproductive in that they are causing problems for U.S. companies which create computer programs designed to allow secure use of the Internet to engage in private discussions and secure commerce. Estimates the dollar value of exports lost range up to $xxx, and continued chilling of U.S. programmers will give foreign programmers the chance to catch up in a field where U.S. expertise presently leads the world. ...."
Needs to be re-written and juiced up, but you get the idea.
Might play to the right crowd (for example, preaching to the choir here), ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Absolutely. Different spins/messages for different audiences. Just like the politicians. I think the crowd may be broader than the Cypherpunks list, however.
but sounds like a non sequitur to me. Not that clever non sequiturs aren't useful.
Indeed.
... - -rich
EBD
participants (2)
-
Brian Davis -
llurch＠networking.stanford.edu