From: Brian Davis <bdavis@thepoint.net>
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 95 22:00:33 PST
To: cme@acm.org
Subject: Re: Is there a lawyer in the house?
In-Reply-To: <9512072127.AA28756@tis.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.951210005729.18670B-100000@mercury.thepoint.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Thu, 7 Dec 1995 cme@acm.org wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 
> >Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 03:39:00 -0500 (EST)
> >From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@polaris.mindport.net>
> >Subject: Re: Netscape gives in to key escrow
> 
> >An individual has no legitimate expectation of privacy in the encryption 
> >numbers in his GAK browser, we reasoned, because he voluntarily conveyed 
> >those numbers to the government when he purchased the software.
> 
> It could be even worse.  I was on a panel last year with Scott Charney (sp?)
> (I believe from DoJ) during which he commented that if you give your secret
> key to anyone -- e.g., your own company -- then you have given up the
> presumption of privacy.  That leaves the police open to get that secret
> without a warrant.  This claim should be checked by a real lawyer.
>

I suspect that Charney was referring to the fact that the third party 
keyholder could be compelled to surrender your key under subpoena without 
having any right against self-incrimination invoked.  
And in that, of course, he was correct.  (But if you give it to your 
lawyer, for example, the communication is privileged ...).

EBD
 
> +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> |Carl M. Ellison    cme@acm.org    http://www.clark.net/pub/cme		   |