🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov11.222615.26993@cactus.org> Terry Ritter writes:
> In <1992Nov11.152949.23374@rchland.ibm.com> lwloen@rchland.vnet.ibm.com
> (Larry Loen) writes:

>>I think if we consider the matter, legal scenarios involving
>>cryptography will fit the wall safe model rather well and we can
>>send people to jail, or torture them for their keys, or whatever the
>>social decision turns out to be without considering cryptography as
>>anything different in the decision.

> OK.  So we have one vote for including wall safes in the bill to
> require users of cryptography to reveal information after due
> process.  The District Attorney will take you out to lunch if
> *that* gets passed.

> Are we really unable to convince an ordinary legislator that this
> would be a bad law?


No, you misunderstand me.  I think there is no need for a new law
at all.  I am not a legal expert, but I think that only information
in one's own brain is exempt from involuntary surrender.  Else, why
have search warrants in the first place?

But, whatever the state of the law actually is, I don't see any
reason that cryptography requires any _special_ treatment.  It just
isn't really different than a wall safe.

We can have a separate argument about whether we should allow
search warrants at all or require any cooperation whatsoever with
the authorities under the Fifth Amendment; my only real purpose was
to demonstrate cryptography has nothing to do with the argument.

-- 
   Larry W. Loen        |  My Opinions are decidedly my own, so please
                        |  do not attribute them to my employer