From: kevin@axon.cs.byu.edu (Kevin Vanhorn)
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 94 15:16:30 PST
To: mnemonic@eff.org
Subject: reno_key_escrow.statement (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <199402072231.RAA07108@eff.org>
Message-ID: <9402072316.AA20220@axon.cs.byu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Mike Godwin writes, about Clipper's key-escrow:

>  But you have to have a valid search
>  warrant or authorization order in hand before you can go to the escrow
>  agencies and request the partial keys.
>
>  Here's the relevant language:

>   > > ATTORNEY GENERAL MAKES KEY ESCROW ENCRYPTION ANNOUNCEMENTS
>   > >
>   > > When an authorized government agency encounters suspected key-
>   > > escrow encryption, a written request will have to be submitted to
>   > > the two escrow agents. The request will, among other things, have
>   > > to identify the responsible agency and the individuals involved;
>   > > certify that the agency is involved in a lawfully authorized
>					      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>   > > wiretap; specify the wiretap's source of authorization and its
>				      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>   > > duration; and specify the serial number of the key-escrow
>   > > encryption chip being used. In every case, an attorney involved in
>   > > the investigation will have to provide the escrow agents assurance
>   > > that a validly authorized wiretap is being conducted.

But the word "warrant" appears nowhere in there.  The agencies requesting
the keys aren't required to present a warrant; they're only required to
promise that they're lawfully authorized.  And if they lie the evidence
is still admissible in court and they suffer no penalty.  And what does
"lawfully authorized" really mean?  Depending on what legislation
Congress passes, it could mean no more than "my supervisor approved it".

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin S. Van Horn     | It is the means that determine the ends.
kevin@bert.cs.byu.edu |