🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Oct28.111437.1@zodiac.rutgers.edu> leichter@zodiac.rutgers.edu writes:

 [lots of stuff deleted]
>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.

Please correct me if I'm wrong; I'm no expert on the legal situation in the
US (or elsewhere, as it were).

It is absolutely legal for anybody to send any message in a closed
envelope by ordinary mail, as well as to seal this envelope if they
want to. 

Any such message can be coded or encrypted by any means, from cyphers
to invisible ink or what-have-you. (Restrictions apply to telegrammes,
but this is because the fees depend on the number of words used, and
the post office doesn't want to transmit a complete report at the price
of one word.)

In the dark ages before high-speed computing such an encryption would
actually be unbreakable unless its design was flawed, the amount of
traffic was very high, or the analysts got hold of inside knowledge
or the technical equipment involved.

This situation has several implications:

- It is impossible to intercept and record large volumes of traffic.
  (Letters can't be opened and re-sealed easily; taking and archiving
  large amounts of photocopies is impractical; the secret message 
  might be coded materially, i.e. invisibly).

- Decryption of a secret message was impossible unless a warrant was
  issued and the headquarters of the sender or receiver were searched
  (or their co-operation requested; in the UK there are so many people
  who are willing to "help the police with their enquiries" ... ;-)).

- Codes can be used in postal communications without (previously!)
  registering with an authority. Such a registration might be expensive
  (the costs could be so high as to exclude the private sector and
  small business!); the process might be complicated and time-consuming;
  and the pure fact that somebody registers a private key could already
  be used as an evidence against them ("You've got something to hide?!").

The right to use private, secret keys in electronic communications is by
no means some additional liberty that hasn't been provided by the
constitution before. It's simply a consequence of the shift from material
to digital correspondence, which itself is (or will be) a necessity in a
networked, computerized society.
--
Detlef Lannert      DC3EK      E-Mail: tsos@rz.uni-duesseldorf.de
"Gedanken sind nicht stets parat,
man schreibt auch, wenn man keine hat."             Wilhelm Busch