Op-ed on encryption: Privacy is no longer an argument

[Bill Stewart]

At 01:01 AM 09/21/2001 -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
>Speaking of ringing hollow...
>How does having keys to my house keep somebody from throwing a fire bomb
>on it, or driving a car through it?
>
>It don't. It's a bait and switch.
>After it's burned down or a big hole in its side a key is rather
>redundent.

It is bait and switch, but the argument is that if the
cops have keys to the house of the guy who drove the car into yours,
they can go see if he's got any co-conspirators and arrest them,
so the risk of getting caught is a deterrent to wouldbe co-conspirators
in future wouldbe crimes, and meanwhile it lets the cops look good
by catching the guys who helped do it.

It's interesting to me that this looks like Ashcroft was
somewhat on our side back when he was in the Senate,
though of course that doesn't mean he'll stay that way as AG.


>On Fri, 21 Sep 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> > http://www.wartimeliberty.com/article.pl?sid=01/09/21/0450203
> >
> >    Crypto Op-Ed: Privacy No Longer an Argument
> >    posted by admin on Thursday September 20, @11:39PM
> >
> >    M. W. Guzy has a provocative and not entirely coherent essay
> >    in Wednesday's St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Excerpt: "(Then-Senator
> >    John) Ashcroft wrote that mandating deciphering tools was tantamount
> >    to requiring 'individuals to surrender the keys to their house... to
> >    the FBI just in case they are someday suspected of breaking the law.'
> >    Somehow, that argument rings a little hollow when viewed through the
> >    smoldering ruins of the World Trade Center