🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <27903@optima.cs.arizona.edu> ho@cs.arizona.edu (Hilarie Orman) writes:
>In article <2229.517.uupcb@grapevine.lrk.ar.us>, jim.wenzel@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (Jim Wenzel) writes:
>|>     I still post the question:
>|> 
>|>     Since laws will probably be drafted concerning the use of cryptology
>|>     how would you want such a law  to read if you had the opportunity to
>|>     shape it.
>
>Thanks for asking.
>
>	The right of the people to use cryptography shall
>	not be infringed.  We hold this right to be
>	self-evident and are embarrassed to be involved in
>	writing a redundant amendment.
>

I believe we already have such an amendment; it's the 5th is it not?  

In a criminal trial you are not required to answer >any< question which
incriminates or tends to incriminate you.  The proper words to use when
asked these questions are:

	"I decline to answer on the grounds that it would incriminate or 
	tend to incriminate me".

That's it. 

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T
Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions