NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/sci/crypt/4476

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-08 | 2.9 KB

Xref: sparky sci.crypt:4476 comp.org.eff.talk:6866 alt.privacy:2153 talk.politics.guns:23762
Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!ames!sun-barr!olivea!news.bbn.com!noc.near.net!inmet!inmet!dlb
From: [e-mail] (David Barton)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Registered Keys - why the need?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Nov 92 22:34:54 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Intermetrics Inc., Washington Division, USA
Lines: 48
In-Reply-To: [e-mail]'s message of 7 Nov 92 14:56:06 -0500
Nntp-Posting-Host: fanny.wash

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] writes:

   The main cost, I believe, is the labor of listening, not the labor
   of installing the intercept.  They put 2 people on simultaneously
   for 3 shifts a day and 7 days a week.  Although my back of the
   envelope calculation fails to account for the savings that would
   come from scaling, the real costs for large scale surveillance
   would nonetheless have to be staggering.  It would be like going
   back to the use of human beings for the telephone switches!

The operative term here is, "keyword searches".  There is a reason the
NSA sponsers research in natural language recognition.

   But perhaps the more important point is that they could not do it
   because it is illegal under Title 18 to tap without an order.  I
   really don't see how some gov't agency could embark on massive
   surveillance without someone finding out and throwing the books at
   them.

I envy your faith in the government.  I do not share it.  The
government does a great many things that are illegal.  Some of these
are found out about in retrospect, and made public.  We can only
speculate about how many are not.

   Another point about intercepts that seems to be misunderstood has
   to do with minimization.  If the gov't is listening, they have to
   turn it off if the conversation turns to something unrelated to the
   court order.  They can periodically check, but even with a court
   order they are not allowed to listen to everything.

And if evidence uncovered in a tap that is not covered by the warrent,
it is inadmissible.  This does not mean that they stop listening.

   It's a very tedious, tiring job and law enforcers groan when they
   Ifind
   out they have to do a tap.  The myth of folks eager to wiretap
   everyone is nothing like the reality.

If everyone played by the rules, there would be a lot fewer objections
to government power in general.

I note that you did not address my comments concerning whether the
registration scheme would even help the government in those cases it
is trying to build.

                    Dave Barton
                    [e-mail]