[Two good answers to frequently asked questions about Clipper, from Usenet]

From: steve-b@access3.digex.net (Steve Brinich)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Time Poll Reports that 80% Oppose Clipper
Date: 9 Mar 1994 13:03:07 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA

[...]

 Argument:  The police can already tap everything, so Clipper doesn't
     change anything.
 Response:  The issue is whether individuals will be able to freely use
     technology to improve their privacy situation, or whether technology
     will be deliberately channelled in the government's interest.
       The governent's position is that technological progress should be
     subject to a ratchet effect to constrain developments in a pro-State
     direction.  Changes in the state of the art that increase opportunities
     for surveillance are accepted -- and, once accepted, should define
     the new baseline.  Changes in the opposite direction are neutralized,
     on the ground that they threaten this new baseline.
       Obviously, this is unacceptable: such a ratchet effect makes technology
     into a machine for clamping down ever more tightly on personal liberty.

[additionally, the idea that "police can already tap everything" is a
mistaken assumption.  - mech@eff.org]

 Argument:  The Fourth Amendment requires some avenues of access to private
     conversations within certain legal guidelines.
 Response:  Government technology-control programs such as Clipper, Digital
     Telephony, etc. are simply not neccesary to preserve Fourth Amendment
     access.  As long as there is *some* way for the government to execute
     its warrants (e.g. traditional "bugs"), the issue is one of mere
     convenience, which is not guaranteed to the government anywhere in the
     Constitution.

[...]

Steve Brinich               | If the government wants us to respect the law, |
<steve-b@access.digex.net>  |         it should set a better example.        |

