Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!telecom-request Date: 8 May 91 17:13:40 GMT From: Tom Gray Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: You're All A Bunch of Terrorists Message-ID: Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada. Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 344, Message 4 of 10 Lines: 32 In article phil@wubios.wustl.edu (J. Philip Miller) writes: > It is the sense of Congress that providers of electronic > communications services and manufacturers of electronic communications > service equipment shall ensure that communications systems permit the > government to obtain the plain text contents of voice, data, and other > communications when appropriately authorized by law. All this really states is that the government should have the right to wire tap if it gets a search warrant. I don't see anything draconian about this. You may also note that this text does NOT specicifically refer to encryption. How can the government wire tap a subscriber multiplexer system and not violate the privacy of many innocent people. This text could be read to include this case. The equipment provider must provide means that enable the government to intecept a single party whithout infringing on the rights of others. Privacy boxes such as these are now provided to prevent users of public WAN's from having access to all of the data on the net. Only information destined to a node is allowed to pass the privacy box. All that this text really does is to bring wire tapping into the current era of multiplexers and shared bandwidth. If this technology is available, the government would be compelled to use it. it could not cite compelling national interest to intercept all communications on a link. It would have to limit itself to a specifically restricted set of communications.