Article View: sci.crypt
Article #383Re: Finally! We're getting somewhere.
From: Paul Qualtrough
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1992 19:15
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1992 19:15
37 lines
2602 bytes
2602 bytes
In article <1992Oct30.103041.304@news.uwyo.edu> jimkirk@news.uwyo.edu writes: > >This seems to ignore constitutional issues, like forcing a person to >testify against himself, What?!?! Has the land of truth, justice and cotton fields done away with the standard swearing-in phrase of "...the truth, the _whole_ truth, and nothing but the truth" which, if agreed to, implies that you must testify "against yourself" if some part of the truth is incriminating? It seems to me that this whole argument (which I have skimmed only) loses sight of the fact that there is another party involved between the individuals and the government, and that is the suppliers of the network that the "private" messages are sent over. Although bound to work within the constitution I imagine, they are more tied to the rules of the market, and as such will bring in rules to suit. The government in turn regulates them. For example, the Post Office "requires" you to put a ZIP code on mail you send, and the price you pay for not doing it is slower delivery time. The companies who supply the "net" may well be within their rights to only forward messages which comply to certain rules, and if the goverment dictates that one of those rules is that "no encrypted message shall pass without a registered assault key" then is there really any constitutional comeback on that? The contract you implicitly agree to with the Post Office is that you won't sent explosives or prohibited substances in ordinary mail and they are withing their rights to X-ray things to make sure you don't - is there any _fundamental_ difference between that and the case in point? I'm not saying the idea is good or bad, but without a real knowlege of your constitution, I doubt that there's going to be a strong case for challenging such a law if passed from a constitutional standpoint. So you'd better support it or protest against it when the time is ripe, because as someone noted earlier "once a bad law is passed, it is virtually never repealed." -- paulq@spider.co.ukBeingPaulQualtroughOfSpiderSystemsSpiderParkStanwellStreet EdinburghEH65NGUnitedKingdomTel+44(31)5549424ext4009(atleastforthetimebeing)
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Nov4.191531.17572@spider.co.uk>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!spider!raft.spider.co.uk!paulqReferences:
<1992Oct30.103041.304@news.uwyo.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!spider!raft.spider.co.uk!paulq From: paulq@spider.co.uk (Paul Qualtrough) Newsgroups: sci.crypt Subject: Re: Finally! We're getting somewhere. Message-ID: <1992Nov4.191531.17572@spider.co.uk> Date: 4 Nov 92 19:15:31 GMT References: <1992Oct30.103041.304@news.uwyo.edu> Organization: Spider Systems Limited, Edinburgh, UK. Lines: 37