🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: sci.crypt
Article #1652

Re: Limits on the Use of Cryptography?

#1652
From: Terry Ritter
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 23:04
47 lines
2631 bytes
 In <1992Nov12.160033.26502@rchland.ibm.com>
 lwloen@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Larry Loen) writes:

>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?

 It is one thing to be forced to surrender ciphertext, and quite
 another to be forced, under criminal penalty, to surrender the
 associated plaintext.  The point of this would be the ability to
 convict someone who will not and *can* not afford to reveal the
 plaintext because of greater penalty.

 Many people (not so many here, of course) believe there *is* a
 need for a new law.  Abstractly, I would prefer that everybody be
 free to do everything; I find myself in the unfortunate position
 that these desires are limited by reality.  In practice, it seems
 to be necessary to have some limits and controls to allow society
 to stumble along.

 I have never had the experience of being searched under a warrant;
 I expect that I would take it as an invasion of my privacy.  But
 the reality is that such an "invasion" is *our heritage* under
 common law.  Moreover, I am not aware that due-process search is
 an active civil rights or personal freedom issue.  Can we really
 expect to avoid this accepted part of our heritage simply because
 we have a new technology that makes that possible?  I expect that
 if we wish to eliminate the use of warrants we will have to
 confront that issue directly in a political forum.

 Computer cryptography makes it possible for those who accumulate
 information to avoid the due-process search which is expected
 when people accumulate things.


>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.

 The difference is that what was once rare and easily breached by
 the authorities is now on its way to becoming common and
 impenetrable.  Cryptography really is different from a wall safe.

 ---
 Terry Ritter   ritter@cactus.org
Technical Details
Message-ID: <1992Nov12.230445.25742@cactus.org>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!know!cass.ma02.bull.com!mips2!news.bbn.com!usc!cs.utexas.edu!milano!cactus.org!ritter
References: <1992Nov11.061210.9933@cactus.org> <1992Nov12.160033.26502@rchland.ibm.com>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!know!cass.ma02.bull.com!mips2!news.bbn.com!usc!cs.utexas.edu!milano!cactus.org!ritter
From: ritter@cactus.org (Terry Ritter)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: Limits on the Use of Cryptography?
Message-ID: <1992Nov12.230445.25742@cactus.org>
Date: 12 Nov 92 23:04:45 GMT
References: <1992Nov11.061210.9933@cactus.org> <1992Nov12.160033.26502@rchland.ibm.com>
Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx
Lines: 47