Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu sci.crypt:16074 comp.org.eff.talk:17264
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,comp.org.eff.talk
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornell!batcomputer!munnari.oz.au!uniwa!cujo!cc.curtin.edu.au!zrepachol
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi)
Subject: Re: Clipper considered harmful [Restated and amplified]
Message-ID: <1993Apr28.002205.1@cc.curtin.edu.au>
Lines: 31
Sender: news@cujo.curtin.edu.au (News Manager)
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
References: <15469@optilink.COM> <1993Apr22.222016.25628@lehman.com> <15583@optilink.COM> <strnlghtC602KA.IFD@netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1993 15:22:05 GMT

In article <strnlghtC602KA.IFD@netcom.com>, strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
> 
> Brad Yearwood posts a long response to the issue of registering a
> phone-clipper relationship.
> 
> It doesn't wash.
> 
> Recall that law enforcement gets a court order to tap a suspect's phone
> calls. They do what they do now--figure out which lines to tap. They then
> record the stuff. If it's Clipper, they read the law enforcement block,
> extract the serial number, and get the keys using the court order.
> 
> No new difficulties (such as using someone else's phone instrument or phone
> line) are introduced that wouldn't have existed absent clipper. If the
> crooks were going to use a pay phone (say), they could have done so without
> clipper. If the government figures out they're so doing, they listen in, and
> if it's a clipper conversation they get the serial number and then the keys.
> 
> If the crooks use an innocent person's clipper phone on the tapped line
> there's no problem. The Feds don't care whose phone instrument is used, just
> that the conversation is by the suspect on the tapped line. They get the
> serial number, get the keys, and they are in business.
> 
> No clipper chip to person association is ever needed.
> 
> David
> -- 
> David Sternlight         Great care has been taken to ensure the accuracy of
>                          our information, errors and omissions excepted.  
> 
> 
