[1664] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Chutzpah! FBI Calls Privacy Extremists Elitist
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (P. J. Ponder)
Sun Sep 28 13:19:12 1997
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 23:55:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: "P. J. Ponder" <ponder@freenet.tlh.fl.us>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@hoffman.vix.com>
cc: cryptography@c2.net
In-Reply-To: <199709272128.OAA16008@andare.fugue.com>
The privacy needs of battered and abused women is exactly the sort of
argument and factual situation that should be brought forward in the
crypto debate. There are, unfortunately, many women who live in fear of
being stalked/battered/abused. This is a far greater problem, just in
quantitative terms, than the yearly 1500 or so active intelligence
investigations for which wiretaps were approved. The needs of these women
should also be comprehensible to every thinking person in the Congress.
I seem to recall something attributed to Phil Z., perhaps as part of
testimony before a Congressional committee, that cited examples of people
in Bosnia using PGP because they were afraid to speak out openly against
government atrocities. There are compelling examples of a positive nature
that can help people understand the need for strong security, in addition
to the obvious commercial and marketplace applications. I think these
arguments may be more persuasive than fear of Big Brother & Aldrich Ames.
It must be apparent to everyone that 1500 cases in a year don't amount to
anything meaningful and the real numbers must be orders of magnitude
greater or else the surveillance extremists wouldn't be making such a big
deal about it. What percentage of all criminal investigations is 1500 per
year?
On Sat, 27 Sep 1997, Ted Lemon wrote:
>
> Actually, it might be worthwhile to bring forth the battered/stalked
> women argument - battered and stalked women *really* need privacy, and
> have often had trouble protecting their privacy from their stalker
> spouses because of corruption in organizations that are supposed to
> protect their data.
>
> _MelloN_
>
