🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1992Nov2.084229.1@zodiac.rutgers.edu> leichter@zodiac.rutgers.edu writes:

>Most of the debate has centered on whether the government should be allowed to
>require access to keys for COMMUNICATION.  Here, it can be hard to see just
>how much need there is, because in fact even today wiretaps are relatively
>rare, and it's difficult to know how important they are.  But there's another
>situation where the case is different:  Encrypted record keeping.

>Imagine that Richard Nixon, in making his tapes, had access to a DAT recorder
>with an encryption chip.  Congress subpeonas the tapes; he delivers tapes that
>sound like white noise.  What are the keys, Mr. Nixon?  No, I won't tell you
>that, Fifth Amendment.

	I'm sorry, but I don't see the difference.  I look on this the same
way I look on radar detectors -- there is nothing in common law, or any
law, that oblidges me to make the job of law enforcement easier by
essentially confessing to what I've done.  If I cannot be proven guilty,
too damn bad.  If noxon doesn't provide the encryption key, let the Congress
pay for the time and resources to find the key.  If they don't, it probably
wasn't worth prosecuting anyway.

	Should I provide the government with my password too, just so they
can more easily snoop around my files?  Screw 'em -- their job is law
enforcement, and my job is to get away with it.  I see no reason to make
their jobs easier at the expense of mine.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >