Re: [dvd-discuss] Hackers = terrorists, an analysis

["John Zulauf" <johnzu(at)ia.nsc.com>]

Declan McCullagh wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 03:18:17PM -0700, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote:
> > BTW- Does anybody have any idea what Ashcroft, Feinstein etc THINK a
> > "backdoor" is? Technically? How they think it operates? They keep calling
> > for them but I really wonder what they really think they are.
> 
> To inject a bit of fact into this thread, neither Ashcroft nor Feinstein
> have called for crypto "backdoors" in response to the Sep. 11 attacks,
> much less "keep calling" for them.

Even more encouraging were Ashcrofts comments to Ted Coppel yesterday. 
When asked by Coppel if he was saying that constitutional rights were
going to need to be limited for the duration of the "war on terror"
Ashcroft stated that he absolutely opposes the idea of a restriction of
our constitutional right "if I could decide to do that, this would be a
dangerous gov't, and I would be not be a part of it..." He further
stated 

(a) the gov't will be seeking to exercise its "full constitutional
powers" but not beyond

(b) that gov't understands that preemptive actions to stop terror
actions before they happen "may mean that we cannot prosecute the case
criminally" -- indicating that while the FBI et. al. has seemed a bit
sloppy about the "admissibility" restrictions on evidence gathering in
the post 9/11 aftermath they are doing this with full understanding of
the trade off of prevent terror acts v. prosecutability...


.002