re do we need the clipper for cheap security in article r c an news intercon com amanda intercon com amanda walker writes agreed remember i don t even think of clipper as encryption in any real sense if i did i d probably be a lot more annoyed about it i agree with this assessment furthermore its promotion as providing greater protection than bare voice is quite true as far as it goes however the only way for it to fulfill its stated goal of letting le wiretap terrorists and drug dealers is to restrict stronger techniques wiretap targets presently use strong encryption weak encryption or the vast majority no encryption the latter two classes can be tapped with weak encryption in every phone the no encryption class is merged into the weak encryption class will the introduction of clipper cause targets presently enjoying strong privacy to give up on it that is to rely for privacy on a system expressly designed to deny it to people like them i doubt it the mere introduction of this scheme will give the government nothing the stated goal of preventing the degradation of wiretapping capabilities can be fulfilled by restriction of domestic cryptography and only by this restriction clipper appears to be no more than a sop given to the public to mute any complaints we would find this a grossly inadequate tradeoff but i fear the public at large will not care i hate to even mention gun control but most people seem to think that an assault weapon as the nyt uses the word is some sort of automatic weapon caliber maybe who wants to have such a thing legal well people know even less about cryptology i suspect that strong cryptography could easily be labeled too much secrecy for law abiding citizens to need that s not for clinton or anyone under him to say though only the federal and supreme courts can say anything about the constitutionality anything the administration or any governmental agency says is opinion at best what they say is opinion but what they do is what matters and will continue unless overturned and the courts are reluctant to annul law or regulation going to some length to decide cases on other grounds furthermore congress can get away with quite a bit they could levy a burdensome tax this would place enforcement in the hands of the batf who as we ve seen you really don t want on your case they could invoke the commerce clause this seems most likely this clause will get you anywhere these days the th was required because the supreme court ruled a prohibitory statute unconstitutional in congress prohibited many drugs with a textual nod to the commerce clause the controlled substances act of still stands i think the government could get away with it amanda walker pgp key by finger or e mail eli ebrandt jarthur claremont edu
