The right to be secure (fwd Computerworld article)
J. Michael Diehl
mdiehl at triton.unm.edu
Thu Jul 15 16:45:39 PDT 1993
According to Paul Baclace:
> >> typically a court order, to both key escrow authorities.
> >"Typically", of course, means "not always", and it's coupled with the phrase
> I think they must be implicitly refering to the anti terrorist act
> which allows surveillence without a court order if national security
> is involved or if foreign nationals are involved, etc.
Now this is news to me. You mean that they can listen to me if they can
rationalize that there is a threat to national security?
Here's a scenerio. John Q. Public HAS a copy of pgp and some LEA knows it. It
must be that he's some kind of subversive. Therefore, he is a threat to national
security. It is therefore legal to infringe on his rights? Maybe this is a bit
of exageration...maybe it's not....
+-----------------------+-----------------------------+---------+
| J. Michael Diehl ;-) | I thought I was wrong once. | PGP KEY |
| mdiehl at triton.unm.edu | But, I was mistaken. |available|
| mike.diehl at fido.org | | Ask Me! |
| (505) 299-2282 +-----------------------------+---------+
| |
+------"I'm just looking for the opportunity to be -------------+
| Politically Incorrect!" <Me> |
+-----If codes are outlawed, only criminals wil have codes.-----+
+----Is Big Brother in your phone? If you don't know, ask me---+
More information about the cypherpunks-legacy
mailing list