🚀 go-pugleaf

denning@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu writes:
>I can't possible respond to everything, but did want to mention that 
>the dialog is good.

It sure is!  Glad we agree on the benefits of the First Amendment,
at least.

>I stand corrected on "unauthorized taps."  At the time I wrote it, I
>was thinking more of the current situation than the past.  Practices
>in the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have changed 
>considerably since the days of COINTELPRO and Watergate, but they
>seldom get any credit for their reforms or any of the things they
>do well.  

I'm pleased to hear this, but if things went wrong once, they're
sure to go wrong again sometime.

>Two examples of cases where tapping saved lives:
>[two heart-wrenching anecdotes omitted]

There's no question that every single right enumerated in the
Constitution occasionally leads to situations just as odious as the
ones you describe.  How about the principle that the burden of proof
is on the Government in criminal cases?  How many murderers have gone
free because of this?  Are you willing to give up on that principle,
just to make sure we punish all the murderers?

Now it's my turn to go out on a limb.  I believe that all the parti-
cipants in this discussion would agree that: When the Government
can show, through legitimately obtained evidence, that a particular
encrypted communication relates to a crime, then they can, after
the fact, subpoena the plaintext of that communication.  What
most of us object to is having to yield the keys before the fact.

-- George Mitchell (george@tessi.com)