Path: utzoo!telecom-request Date: Thu, 9 May 1991 17:21:15 GMT From: "Marc T. Kaufman" Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: You're All A Bunch of Terrorists Message-ID: Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA 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 349, Message 5 of 10 Lines: 44 In article phil@wubios.wustl.edu (J. Philip Miller) writes: -> (A proposed Senate resolution:) [Moderator's Note: Text omitted here. See prior messages. PAT] In article Tom Gray writes: > 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. On the contrary, the phrase "plain text contents" specifically refer to the proposal that encryption providers should (must?) provide a back door through which the encryption can be compromised. The interesting (to me) speculation is how the timing and content of this proposal relate to Motorola's proposal to sell STU-3 equipped telephones to the general public so that they can carry on conversations privately over cellular phones. [the STU-3 is a DES encryption digatal voice unit]. It is known that certain Federal law enforcement agencies are very unhappy over that proposal. (Which leads into the Computers, Freedom and Privacy thread ...) Why should there be a PRESUMPTION that electronic communication is NOT subject to privacy when such things as the US Mail are specifically private by law. [There's a mailgroup for privacy issues, right? how much traffic does it get? I might subscribe if it doesn't take all day to read ...] Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Neon.stanford.edu) [Moderator's Note: Yes, there is such a list. See the first message in this issue. Write to 'telecom-priv-request@pica.army.mil'. PAT]