🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1060.517.uupcb@grapevine.lrk.ar.us>, 
             jim.wenzel@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (Jim Wenzel)  writes:
 
>     I  have been  reading this   newsgroup for  several weeks  with keen
>     interest. And  for one am in  favor of the privacy  that it permits.
>     However, recently (yesterday) I had  the opportunity to speak with a
>     law enforcement official who had quite a different view.
> 
>     He was calling  from California in order to pick  up the pgp program
>     from us. Seems that they are on the case of a molestor who encrypted
>     his information using PGP. If they  can't crack it the molestor will
>     more than  likely walk due to  lack of evidence. This  has caused me
>     some  concern   because  we  have  agreed   (volunteered)  to  be  a
>     distribution site  for PGP (logon as  PGP USER pw: PGP).  Yet, I for
>     one would hate to think that there is anyway we could help such scum
>     in receiveing PGP or similar encryption technology.
> 
>     At  this point  I am  curious as  to what  others think.  Both about
>     distribution  and about  it's use   by the  underworld. I  have read
>     'Dennings' report  and though I  disagree with it  on several points
>     this particular  case does raise some  real-life issues pertinent to
>     the discussion. If a  law was to be passed (and you  can bet that if
>     cases like  this one in particular  continue one will be)  how would
>     you like it to read?
> 
> *  Jim Wenzel,  SysOp,  The GrapeVine BBS,  (501) 753-8121  5.6 gigs  *
 
    Well, Jim, I have a few questions for the "California law enforcement
official" the next time he calls your BBS:
 
1) Why did he have to call Little Rock when just about any university in
   California could have FTP'ed a copy for him, and many California BBS's
   carry PGP20 and PGP20SRC?
2) How can he have identified the guy as a molestor (not "alleged molestor")
   when the ONLY evidence against the guy is in PGP-encrypted files?
3) How does he even know that the files contain such evidence?
4) If he doesn't have PGP yet, how does he know the files are PGP-encrypted?
5) What kind of records do molestors keep anyway?  Having never been one, I
   wouldn't know, but I'd guess that such a "profession" would not feel a
   crying need for accurate books.
 
    Also, I wouldn't worry about the distribution aspect on this one, Jim.
Since the "molester" probably would have used the -c option to encrypt his
own files (why use a public/private pair?), he could have just as easily,
and as effectively, used any public-domain implementation of the DES to
serve his fiendish purposes.  And the DES has been available for MS-DOS
machines for years.
 
-----SOAPBOX MODE ON-----

    To answer your question, though, I really think it's a non-issue.  I
mean, I'm sure the only records that most molestors keep are mental.  Should
we pass a law that all citizens must keep a permanent written record of any
"perverse" thought that crosses their minds, so even sex offenders will
leave a paper trail to facilitate prosecution?  Neither should encryption
be limited for that reason.  Besides, what kind of crime would leave its
ONLY evidence locked in the perp's head or in his ciphertext files?
 
-----SOAPBOX MODE OFF-----

+----------------------------+--------------------------------+
|      James A Campbell      |  ujacampbe@memstvx1.memst.edu  |
|  Math Sciences Department  |  PGP 2.0 Public Key Available  |
|  Memphis State University  |  (Not that I use it, myself!)  |
+----------------------------+--------------------------------+