🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Oct28.111437.1@zodiac.rutgers.edu>, leichter@zodiac.rutgers.edu writes:
> In article <7553@transfer.stratus.com>, cme@ellisun.sw.stratus.com
> (Carl Ellison) writes:

[stuff deleted]

> Sigh.  It would really help if people had some understanding of law and
> history before pontificating about them.  I chose Mr. Ellison's message to
> reply to because it's right at hand, but he's hardly alone.

Given the tenor of your post, you're hardly in a position to accuse anyone
of pontification.

> Here's the exact text of the Fourth Amendment:
> 
> 	The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
> 	papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
> 	shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
> 	probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
> 	particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
> 	persons or things to be seized.
> 
> Note that the word "privacy" does not occur in this Amendment.  In fact, I
> don't believe it occurs anywhere in the Constitution or in any Amendment.
> (Anyone have the text of the Constitution on line?  It would be really handy
> for such discussions.)  A "right to privacy" has been inferred by some judges
> from the general philosophy of the Constitution, and from the Ninth and Tenth
> Amendments, which reserve unspecified, unmentioned rights and powers to the
> people and the states.  The exact extent of such a "right to privacy" has
> never been clarified, but it is clearly seen as growing out of the same
> philosophy as the rest of the Constitution.

Kind of depends on how you interpret the word "search" in this context.
And if there weren't some doubt about this, I wonder why judges would have
bothered to infer something which you seem to clearly think doesn't exist.
 
> So, what is the Constitutional philosophy on the right to keep our "persons,
> houses, papers, and effects" secure?  Read the words.  This is not, and has
> never been, an absolute right.  It's a right subject to violation upon
> "probable cause", appropriately supported.  NOTHING here supports a right to
> communicate messages or store data in a way that cannot be reached by the
> government, given an appropriate warrant.  There is NO precedent for such a
> right.  The closest you can come are some very specific protections, such as
> the protection against self incrimination (a protection adopted, by the way,
> not out of any concern for privacy but to help prevent the use of torture or
> other means of pressuring confessions - for which it was eventually seen to
> be insufficient, leading to the exclusionary rule), the rules of spousal
> immunity (to protect "the sanctity of the family", a person cannot be
> compelled to testify against his or her spouse; in some cases, cannot even
> do so voluntarily.  These rules are under attack today and are on their way
> out as holdovers from a bygone era, intended to protect women by keeping them
> away from the harsh world of the courts - and really protecting men by ruling
> out their wive's testimony against them.), and protection of discussions with
> one's lawyer or the clergy.  Note that your "private conversation" with a
> friend is anything but:  A court can compel your friend to reveal it.  Even
> your consultations with your doctor are generally not immune from a warrant.

Right.  And if I'm charged with committing some crime or other, they can
force me to divulge my private key.  What's that you say?  What if I give
them the wrong one?  How's that any different from my lying about the talk
I had with my friend?  Actually, it's easier, since a bogus key should produce
garbage, which would be prima facie evidence of non-cooperation; whereas an
account of a conversation is much harder to disprove (unless there were other
witnesses to it).

> Most of the arguments against any government role in cryptography are based
> on the principle that Constitutional protections are not enough; messages
> should be protected no matter what the government does.  This is totally
> outside the Western legal tradition, or any other legal tradition I'm aware
> of.  I think you'd have to search long and hard for a judge who would rule
> that you had a right to keep information secret even against a properly
> executed warrant.  In fact, the courts tend to safeguard their right to compel
> testimony aggressively, as they view it as fundamental to their ability to
> conduct trials.  Those "sealed envelopes to your buddy in CA" can be opened
> under court order, or your buddy can be given the choice of telling what was
> in them or sitting in jail.  You never had some of the "rights" you seem to
> think you had.
> 
> | And if you're caught with the machinery for hiding bits, that's evidence
> | that you're a crook, unless you can prove that you've registered with Big
> | Brother like a good boy or girl....
> 
> Try getting caught with duplicate sets of books some time.  You WILL reveal
> your income to the government so that it can adequately determine the taxes
> you owe.  You WILL provide enough information about your sources of income
> to satisfy the government.  Don't like it?  Afraid that revealing this much
> would give away criminal behavior on your part?  Or because you just think
> that it's your private business?  Well, that's really too bad for you.
> 
> 							-- Jerry

-- 

#include <std_disclaimer.h>

Dan S.