🚀 go-pugleaf

 In <1992Nov12.063300.12408@seanews.akita.com>
 billmcc@seanews.akita.com (Bill McCormick) writes:


>The "safe" analogy seems to be the best model.  Requiring registration
>of crypto-keys is *exactly* the same as requiring registration of safe
>keys and combinations.
>
>Why is it that it's immediately obvious that being required to give
>the government copies of your safe or house keys is incredibly intrusive but
>that requiring registration of crypto keys doesn't evoke the same
>response.

 Suppose the issue is *not* (necessarily) giving the government keys
 in advance, but rather "providing access *after* due process":  The
 Constitution specifically provides that people are secure only from
 *unreasonable* search and seizure, and this certainly implies that
 *reasonable* search and seizure is accepted and constitutional.

 If government agents *have* a warrant, would an attempt to prevent
 their entry into a house be considered "legal"?  Is secretly-held
 information really different from other "effects" mentioned in the
 Fourth Amendment?

>Something to think about.

 ---
 Terry Ritter   ritter@cactus.org