🚀 go-pugleaf

jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>In article <1992Oct28.214920.15601@tessi.com>,
>george@tessi (George Mitchell) writes:
>>Now it's my turn to go out on a limb.  I believe that all the parti-
>>cipants in this discussion would agree that: When the Government
>>can show, through legitimately obtained evidence, that a particular
>>encrypted communication relates to a crime, then they can, after
>>the fact, subpoena the plaintext of that communication.  What
>>most of us object to is having to yield the keys before the fact.

>[. . .] it does seem that in USA the tradition is different and many
>people even on groups like comp.org.eff.talk and sci.crypt are willing
>to accept wiretaps, so your hypotesis might be a workable working
>hypotesis.  Well, to be fair, even many people in Finland would accept
>wiretaps and the police is trying to get them every few years - looks
>like they have a better possibility to succeed now than before.

I did not intend my message to be an endorsement of wiretapping.
-- George Mitchell (george@tessi.com)