🚀 go-pugleaf

Thus said ritter@cactus.org (Terry Ritter):
>
> I write:
>>"The right to free speech includes the right to speak in a fashion not
>>easily understood by others."
>
> Certainly we can agree that "speaking" via wires or on public
> "airwaves" is not, ultimately, free.  Given that resources are
> consumed, there will be regulations for use.

Public airwaves are a limited resource, and thus there are stronger
regulations imposed upon them.  Speaking via wires, of course, depends
on who owns the wires (or fiber or whatever) and whether it is a common
carrier or what.

> But does society have the right, *after* due process, to see behind
> any secrecy veil a private citizen may erect?  While a citizen may
> not be compelled to testify against himself, his or her "houses,
> papers, and effects" are only protected from *unreasonable* "search
> and seizure" (that is, without a warrant issued for probable cause).
>
> Since society *did* have an existing right to penetrate secrecy
> (*after* due process) under The Constitution, we would have to
> argue that there is no social need for such access under new
> security technology.  Can anyone believe that no cases will exist
> under which society will require such access?  Thus, is punishment
> for failure to allow access (*after* due process) somehow not
> a legitimate law?

If you search my apartment for evidence to use against me and find a
document written in Chinese, can you force me to translate it into
English for you?

How about if it's in an obscure dialect, and nobody versed in it can be
located?

In the case above, you can subpoena the plaintext.  Of course, you can't
subpoena it from the guy himself, since that would be self-incrimination.
Because such a law would violate Constitutional protection against
self-incrimination, yes, it would be "somehow not a legitimate law."
Of course, if anyone other than the guy in question knows the plaintext,
or key, or something else about the material, you can always make
him(her) testify.

The govt can issue a warrant to search your premises, but you don't have
to help them find things or understand the meaning of what they find.

> I think it would be easier to argue for legislation setting higher
> standards for warrants than it would be to argue that all personal
> information is ultimately private under all circumstances.

No, it isn't.  However, personal information which is not obtainable
without my cooperation (such as facts I have memorized) cannot be
obtained without my consent for use against me.  If you disagree with
the Founding Fathers on this one, OK, but don't expect others to like
that position.
-- 
Marc VanHeyningen    mvanheyn@whale.cs.indiana.edu    MIME & RIPEM accepted


Art is experimental, or it isn't art.