Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu sci.crypt:15687 comp.org.eff.talk:17088
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,comp.org.eff.talk
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!att!allegra!ulysses!ulysses!smb
From: smb@research.att.com (Steven Bellovin)
Subject: Re: Clipper considered harmful
Message-ID: <1993Apr22.014337.18108@ulysses.att.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 01:43:37 GMT
Distribution: inet
References: <15469@optilink.COM> <1r24us$oeh@agate.berkeley.edu>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 19

In article <1r24us$oeh@agate.berkeley.edu>, shirriff@sprite.berkeley.edu (Ken Shirriff) writes:
> Imagine archiving all pay-phone conversations, so if someone turns out
> to be a drug dealer, you can listen to all their past drug deals.  And
> archive calls to/from suspected Mafia members, potential terrorists,
> radicals, etc.  Imagine the convenience for the police of being able to
> get a warrant now and listening to all the calls the World Trade Center
> bombers made in the past year.
> 
> Since archiving would be such a powerful tool and so easy to do, why
> wouldn't it happen?

Apart from the storage and search requirements, because the evidence
is inadmissible:  wiretaps require a warrant.  And as soon as one
such case comes to light, all previous cases are likely to be discovered,
and thrown out.  There was an article in the NY Times a few months ago
about how many convictions in the state might be invalidated because
they relied on pen registers -- and the Court of Appeals ruled that
pen registers were equivalent to wiretaps, and hence required warrants
under New York law.
