🚀 go-pugleaf

I think Jerry Leichter misses the point when he argues that there's
no inherent right to privacy in the context of this discussion of
cryptography, in the Fourth Amendment.

That amendment gives an absolute right to security in one's "papers"
unless a duly executed warrant based on probable cause is executed.
It does not say one has to be insecure in case a warrant is presented.
Thus one is entitled to absolute communications security, and if
a warrant is presented, one is (legally) compelled to furnish the
plaintext.

What law enforcement agencies are arguing is that a criminal won't
oblige, so they have to have the power to obtain all plaintext
so that when there's a warrant they can obtain the stuff they want.
That is the distortion of the Amendment.

Let's take the situation at the time of drafting the amendment,
when cryptosystems weren't as ubiquitous as now. The amendment
means one had the right to lock up one's papers, and if the
government presented a warrant, had to give them up. IT DID NOT
MEAN EVERYBODY HAD TO DEPOSIT A COPY OF THE KEY TO ONE'S SAFE WITH
THE GOVERNMENT IN CASE A WARRANT WAS ISSUED. Such an interpretation
would have been ludicrous, as is the interpretation today that
one can't use secure cryptography to protect one's papers, or that
one had to give a key to the government in advance of a warrant
issuing.