🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <BwuxwJ.5BA@acsu.buffalo.edu>, boyd@acsu.buffalo.edu (Daniel F Boyd) writes:
> In article <1992Oct28.152443.1589@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu> 
> denning@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu writes:
> > In another, they prevented a porno-ring from kidnaping a 12-year
> > old.  The ring planned to murder him while making (and then selling)
> > a film about it.  In that case, they intercepted voice, fax, and
> > conversations over a BBS.
> 
> This sounds awfully like the "snuff film" urban legend that's been
> debunked many many times over on alt.folklore.urban.  
> 
> Ms. Denning: Either prove it with documentation or retract the
> statement.  I don't need much, just the date and the city -- I can
> look it up in the papers given that.

If you read a.f.u that well, you'd know that this particular incident
(as opposed to the general category ``snuff films'') has been discussed
of late, and someone did, in fact, post a full newspaper article.  I
don't think any retraction from Dr. Denning is called for.

But of course, that's not the issue at all.  We can all construct very
plausible scenarios where wiretapping can save lives.  The real
question is this:  is it the loss of liberty worth the tradeoff?

I'm perfectly serious.  Between complete and bloody anarchy (Beirut of
not very many years ago comes to mind) and Orwell's 1984, there's a
happy medium.  Things won't run as smoothly or efficiently for the
police as Orwell envisioned, and people will have less freedom to do
more or less anything than they did in Beirut, but on the balance, most
people will be better off.  And I agree with Dr. Denning on this point,
as I'm sure most of you do.  Where she and I differ is on where to draw
the line.


		--Steve Bellovin

P.S.  My apologies to the a.f.u folks for the cross-posting; I didn't
feel like following twice to the same post.  Followups to sci.crypt
on the main subject.