| eric@lucii.org on Fri, 14 Feb 2003 14:30:32 -0500 |
|
Eric On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 11:40:32AM -0500, gabriel rosenkoetter wrote: > On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 02:46:39AM -0500, Paul wrote: > > If the communication is encrypted, how will anyone know if a crime is > > being planned using encryption? > > Because someone will get caught and issued a subpoena for their > private key. I'd have to question how a private key could truly be "private" if you can be forced to divulge it. IANAL but the 4th amendment of the constitution appears to prohibit fishing expeditions like that. Of course we can ask Kevin Mitnick :-( He never revealed his private key but they exacted a price for that refusal. In the future, encryption will be thwarted in less direct ways: Keyboard monitors that record your passphrase when you enter it, cameras watching your keyboard that show what you're typing. If necessary, they can simply declare you as a terrorist, ship you to a country that allows torture, and wait a week or two for your "voluntary confession" =8-0 > > Sounds like the law will need to be expanded to make all encryption > > illegal. > > It's too late to put that cat back in the bag. You can try, but > it'll be totally unenforcable. I believe he's in agreement with you on that - it looks like he just stated it in the negative to show that the logical conclusion is unworkable. > On the legal front, that violates my privacy. In the real world, > 'What do you mean by "encrypted" officer? Are you saying I can't > arrange the bits on my hard drive in a certain order? What orders am > I allowed to arrange them in? If you can't catalog those, there's > really just no way I could comply with this law...' That's a great idea Gabe... bit order! What a hoot! I found http://www.rubberhose.org to be particularly interesting although their development appears to be preceeding slowly. NOT to start a flame war here but I find it AMAZING that the Supreme Court can find the right to privacy for abortion but not for recreational drug use, encryption, or a host of other "private" activities. Wow. I've been told that the reason there is so little mention of privacy in the constitutions (state or federal) is because the founders had no idea what a surveillance state is like. In 1776, if you wanted to have a private conversation, you walked out of the house and into the fields... 5 minutes or less and you'd be out earshot! > > Real criminals would disregard the laws and take advantage of > > communication that is non-encrypted by law while continuing to use > > encryption them selves. Convenient. > > Of course. Contact your federal and state representatives. Agreed! That, and Vote - the one "contact" they cannot ignore. > -- > gabriel rosenkoetter > gr@eclipsed.net Eric -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ # Eric Lucas ======================================================================== There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root. -- Henry David Thoreau Attachment:
pgpMaPG65BGrB.pgp
|
|