From: Mike Godwin <mnemonic@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 93 22:35:44 PDT
To: karn@qualcomm.com (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: Contempt of  Court
In-Reply-To: <9306240119.AA00561@servo>
Message-ID: <199306240536.AA18014@eff.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


 
Phil Karn writes:

> At 02:13 PM 6/17/93 PDT, Mike Axelrod 422-0929 wrote:

Who's this Axelrod guy? I'm Godwin.

> >If the key itself had embedded testimony that was incriminating, then it is
> >possible one could invoke the 5th amendment to avoid disclosure of the key.
> >But, I suppose a court could do an end run around that by giving limited 
> >use immunity for the incriminating content of the key. Comments?
> >
> >Mike.
 
I think Phil thinks we're one and the same. See below.

> What I've never been able to understand about Mike's claim is why the
> "fruit of the poisoned tree" principle would not apply to an encryption
> key. As I understand it, this principle bars the use of any evidence
> that was gathered as a direct or indirect result of inadmissable
> evidence (like a warrantless search).

Untrue. "Poisonous tree" doctrine applies to illegally obtained
evidence, not to "inadmissible evidence" (a very different category,
logically).
 
> Mike, back at the Hackers' Conference you mentioned a Supreme Court
> decision that said in passing that one could not compel a defendant to
> reveal the combination to a lock, but that it wasn't a binding precedent
> because it didn't relate to the case at hand. (I forget the legal term
> you used).

"Dicta."

I'm sure Phil is referring to me, not to Axelrod, here.

> Could you find and post an excerpt of this particular
> decision?

I've been trying to find this case, but haven't found it.



--Mike