From: smithmi@dev.prodigy.com (Michael Smith)
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 1995 00:10:48 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: COE Recommendation No. R (95) 13
Message-ID: <199511171546.KAA17869@tinman.dev.prodigy.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



>>9. Subject to legal privileges or protection, most legal systems permit
>>investigating authorities to order persons to hand over objects under
>>their control that are required to serve as evidence. In a parallel
>>fashion, provisions should be made for the power to order persons to
>>submit any specified data under their control in a computer system in the
>>form required by the investigating authority.
>>________________________________________________________________________
>
>>Is this 'what we would want'? It clearly means that one can be ordered
>>to reveal the password to encrypted data and punished by law if one
>>refuses.

Forgive me if this point has already been raised, but couldn't an 
objection to such laws be based on the protection against 
self-incrimination? 

Maybe this all depends on whether the legal context is a civil or a 
criminal proceeding. If I'm being sued and they ask me at a deposition
whether I did such-and-such, I can't take the Fifth (or can I?). But 
if I'm accused of murder, the police can't make me tell them where I've 
buried the knife. However, if I have a wall safe and they 
get a warrant to search it, can I be jailed for contempt if I don't 
give them the combination? 

This seems to be a case where existing legal paradigms ought to 
extend rather naturally. Whether the existing paradigms are any 
good or not is of course a separate question. 

--Michael Smith
  smithmi@dev.prodigy.com