Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!husc6!uwvax!caip!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!mhuxv!mhuxo!gjphw
From: gjphw@mhuxo.UUCP (WYANT)
Newsgroups: net.ham-radio,net.video,net.crypt,net.mail,net.legal
Subject: Re: Some comments on the Electronic Communications Privacy Act
Message-ID: <1240@mhuxo.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 8-Sep-86 17:48:11 EDT
Article-I.D.: mhuxo.1240
Posted: Mon Sep  8 17:48:11 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 9-Sep-86 06:23:53 EDT
References: <1031@frog.UUCP> <15591@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 34
Xref: mnetor net.ham-radio:2222 net.video:2169 net.crypt:569 net.mail:1122 net.legal:3493

>       Once again we see an example of an incredibly stupid law
> being proposed. Is there any chance that this monstrosity will
> pass?
> 

    While I agree that the proposed law is a change in the way the airwaves
 have been treated in the U.S. (anyone can try to receive anything, only
 transmissions are regulated), restrictions on reception are common in many
 other countries.  Despite the difficulty of enforcing restrictions on
 receptions, many governments have chosen to pursue this route in an attempt to
 protect themselves or major commercial interests.

    There is more to restriction on reception proposals than merely seeking to
 protect commercial interests.  If the responsibility for ensuring secure
 communications were lodged solely with the system operator, it would be quite
 reasonable for the operators to pursue the use of digital encryption.  This is
 likely to lead to the introduction of some very nice encoding/decoding boxes
 to the general public.  According the the government, the general public
 includes terrorists, subversives, common criminals (as opposed to uncommon
 criminals), and hackers (!).  The law enforcement and intelligence agencies
 would not like these unsavory characters to gain ready access to a means of
 communication that could not easily be tapped.  Some of the encryption schemes
 can not even be broken by the National Security Agency.

    In an effort to avoid handing any more advantages to criminals (e.g.,
 communications secure from monitoring by law enforcement people), the
 government has evidently decided to restrict selected public freedoms.  We
 must decide which of the various conflicting rights take precedence in the
 arena of communications.  It is not an easy decision to make.

                                    Patrick Wyant
                                    AT&T Bell Laboratories
                                    Naperville, IL
                                    *!ihnp4!{mhuxo,ihwld}!gjphw