From: Yarkumila <yusuf921@raven.csrv.uidaho.edu>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 94 21:02:27 PDT
To: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@vorlon.mankato.msus.edu>
Subject: Re: LITTLE BROTHER INSIDE
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9407262206.A5701-0100000@vorlon.mankato.msus.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.87.9407262050.A20495-0100000@raven.csrv.uidaho.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




On Tue, 26 Jul 1994, Robert A. Hayden wrote:

> > Is explaining how something works (aka giving a passphrase) testimony?
> > Quite possibly not.  The explanation or passphrase is not
> > incriminating by itself; it says nothing and claims nothing.
> 
> What if the passphrase was something like "I do not pay income taxes"?
> (half-joking, half-serious)
> 

Apparently the only way you would not get contempt of court is if
it were against the law for you to be in possetion of the password

say for example a friend of yours works for NASA and happens to give you 
the password. you store drug shipment info/kiddy porn (whatever)

and they want it (what they want to do with it after the investigation is
beside the point)

the phrase isn't incriminating, it could be "The judge is a bed-wetter"

what we NEED is a 2 passphrase program,
1 password decrypts your infor for you, the other formats your hard drive
or prinst out a fake diary or something.

the best defense is to say you forgot it, it was some program you didn't 
want your children editing at the time,

then again whats a year in jail for contempt of court compared to 
20-30 (or whatever) years for child pornography

--
Finger yusuf921@raven.csrv.uidaho.edu for PGP public key 2.6ui

"When I was crossing the border into Canada, they asked if I had any
firearms with me.  I said, `Well, what do you need?'"
		-- Steven Wright