From: Matthew J Miszewski <MJMISKI@macc.wisc.edu>
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 93 22:27:53 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: CLIP: Legal Aspects
Message-ID: <23041800272877@vms2.macc.wisc.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Clinton Clipper Legal Stuff:
 
  With regard to the fear that the issuance of your 'Klinton Key'
will allow your favorite TLA to decrypt all conversations taped
previous to the issuance of the warrant granting the key, there
is precedence that disallows it.  In US v. Plamondon 407 US 297,
the Supreme Ct. held that *prior* judicial approval is a must for
any evidence sought to be admitted.  Therefore, while the
precedence does not prevent them from actually decyphering your
previous conversations, there is support that states it can not
be used against you.
 
In US v. Donovan (sorry lost the cite), the court held that the
actual application must Identify *all* parties to be surveilled.
Thus, the CIA cannot simply run a tape on you and expect to use
it in court.  It is important that everyone understand that none
of these cases *prevent* any agency from *doing* the
surveillance, and that probable cause is still an easy standard
to meet in order to get the warrant.  These cases merely tell you
what would be admissable against anyone in court (i.e. this does
not affect TLA (three letter acronyms) from blackmailing you or
scaring the hell out of you.
 
There is an enormous body of law out there on this topic and
could use some guidance from the Cypherpunk elders for search
topics.  What's needed out there.  Email me privately.
 
TOTALLY aside from the Clipper topic:  Just got the new WIRED.
Excellent article.  Groovy pix.  Which one is Murdering Thug? 8^)
 
mjmiski@macc.wisc.edu                    CyberLaw, etc.
Matt