[7014] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Clinton signs bill to count wiretaps that encounter encryption
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Arnold G. Reinhold)
Fri May 5 12:57:23 2000
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <v04210103b5387069c752@[24.218.56.92]>
In-Reply-To: <39117f0f0.1095@databus.databus.com>
Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 08:58:45 -0400
To: Barney Wolff <barney@databus.com>, cryptography@c2.net
From: "Arnold G. Reinhold" <reinhold@world.std.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
At 9:42 AM -0400 5/4/2000, Barney Wolff wrote:
>Er, and how will these numbers be audited? Given that distorting them
>will do no direct and immediate harm to any individual, the temptation
>to "adjust" the numbers will be great. Of course nobody in law
>enforcement would ever do such a thing ...
>
>Barney Wolff <barney@databus.com>
It's worse than that. The new reports are to cover "law enforcement
encounters with encrypted communications in the execution of wiretap
orders." http://www.politechbot.com/docs/clinton-crypto.050300.html
"Encounters" suggests that there will be no distinction between
encryption that hinders law enforcement access and encryption that
does not. For example, any tap of a GSM cell phone could be reported
even though the cipher GSM uses is relatively easy to break. In 1999
there were 676 authorized taps for cell phones and pagers vs. 399 for
stationary phones. (1998: 576 vs 494, so the trend is toward cell
phones)
They might even count code-division multiplexing as encryption. That
could sweep in many cordless phones used on the stationary lines as
well. Expect reports that imply encryption is a huge problem for wire
taps.
Arnold Reinhold
