🚀 go-pugleaf

 In <1992Nov12.213519.9323@news.cs.indiana.edu>
 Marc VanHeyningen <mvanheyn@whale.cs.indiana.edu> writes:


>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?

 I have seen no proposal to change this.


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

 Nor this.


>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."

 Right.  We are discussing the use of the new technology of
 computers and cryptography, and just what "rights" and "limits"
 apply to the new situation.


>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.

 Nonsense.  Clearly you are not required to yield your memories.
 However, *anything* (you) write or "have" *can* be "obtained
 without (your) consent for use against (you)," provided only that
 a specific warrant does issue for probable cause.

 Before computers and modern cryptography, this was an issue which
 was not pervasive, and so did not need to be addressed.  Perhaps
 that is no longer the case.


>If you disagree with
>the Founding Fathers on this one, OK, but don't expect others to like
>that position.

 Apparently you have some direct connection to the Founding Fathers
 which I do not.

 Since I have access only to the document itself, I can only form
 an opinion by reading it, and I believe my position is entirely
 consistent with the Fourth Amendment.

 ---
 Terry Ritter   ritter@cactus.org