🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov16.090434.24712@cactus.org> ritter@cactus.org (Terry Ritter) writes:
>>That is, as long as it is a legitimate response to a warrant for my keys
>>to say "I don't know them; I threw them all away as soon as the session
>>ended" or "I never knew them", I'm not sure I'd object to such a warrant
>>issuing (except as a taxpayer concerned about the waste of my dollars on
>>on futile pursuits).
>
> Can you imagine being able to avoid revealing your tax records
> like this?  The government does impose serious record-keeping and
> disclosure requirements right now; this is neither a new function
> of government, nor a new sort of requirement for citizens.

The difference as far as I'm concerned is that the government has a vested
interest in tax records, and not just in a few specific cases, but generally
enough to require everyone to expend some effort to comply.  On the other
hand, to use a rather crude example (and unfortunately I can't think of a
better one off hand), although the government might benefit from being
able to test for intoxication after the fact in a few isolated situations,
it would be far too invasive for them to require you to retain a specimen
every time you urinate.  I view retaining crypto keys as more like the
latter than the former.  If such a key retention requirement is seriously
proposed, my thought would be that either the government was actively trying
to make cryptography too difficult for the average citizen to consider
using, or, like the "conspiracy" laws, trying to ensure that if they can't
get you for what they want to get you on, they can at least get you on
something.
-- 
Rob Stampfli  rob@colnet.cmhnet.org      The neat thing about standards:
614-864-9377  HAM RADIO: kd8wk@n8jyv.oh  There are so many to choose from.