🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1992Oct29.162712.1@zodiac.rutgers.edu> leichter@zodiac.rutgers.edu writes:

>(For those who willing to think rather than dream, the government's
>right to enforce bans against murder and other nasty things are implicit
>in what's known as the "police power" of government.  That power allows
>the government to draft a very wide variety of laws "for the public
>welfare".  Laws controlling encryption would clearly be authorized under
>the police power; whether they would stand up against various explicit
>limitations on government power is another question.)

They might stand up.  However, they would not benefit "the public welfare",
nor do they have rational justification as "police power".  It's too bad
Bork isn't on the court -- he would probably vote against such abuse of
power as proposed encryption regulation.

>Fine.  Let's apply the same precedent to cryptography:  If you refuse to
>reveal your key, the government may make any reasonable claim about what
>the cleartext is.  It is then your obligation to prove that the cleartext
>is something different.  Would that make you happy?

The government can only make statements and force you to disprove them in
regard taxes (clearly contrary to explicit wording of the Constitution, but
the Renquest and the Supremes disagree) and in drug-related seizure cases. 
The later is currently in dispute in the Federal Courts.
--
Arthur L. Rubin: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (work) Beckman Instruments/Brea
216-5888@mcimail.com 70707.453@compuserve.com arthur@pnet01.cts.com (personal)
My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer.
My interaction with our news system is unstable; please mail anything important.