From: Brian Davis <bdavis@thepoint.net>
To: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Message Hash: 6676be2bfba4a1b00f875be429cfddfbc5662efbd97f2ccb8e3a445536aa57bf
Message ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.951210023002.18670G-100000@mercury.thepoint.net>
Reply To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.951210013333.3178A-100000@polaris.mindport.net>
UTC Datetime: 1995-12-10 07:32:53 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 9 Dec 95 23:32:53 PST
From: Brian Davis <bdavis@thepoint.net>
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 95 23:32:53 PST
To: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Subject: Re: Is there a lawyer in the house?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.951210013333.3178A-100000@polaris.mindport.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.951210023002.18670G-100000@mercury.thepoint.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
On Sun, 10 Dec 1995, Black Unicorn wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Dec 1995, Brian Davis wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 8 Dec 1995, Black Unicorn wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 7 Dec 1995, Jeff Weinstein wrote:
> > >
> > > > Black Unicorn wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 7 Dec 1995, sameer wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > How about if Bob had a contractual agreement with Alice to keep his
> > > > key secret?
> > >
> > > Then as a defense attorney, I would argue that Bob had an obvious
> > > expectation of privacy with Alice, and that the fact that he relayed this
> > > key to Alice only under those circumstances represents a definite
> > > expression of his intent to keep the key private, thus triggering 4th
> > > amendment protections. My view is that this would be a very strong
> > > argument.
> >
> > Bob's Fourth Amendment rights are not triggered by his contract with
> > Alice. Alice can be compelled to give up the key (by testimony or
> > production) and giving up that key does not tend to incriminate *Alice*
> > in a violation of law. Alice can't invoke Bob's rights against
> > self-incrimination for obvious reasons: Alice isn't Bob.
> > ^^^^
>
> You've taken the narrow answer I was trying to give out of context.
> As for fifth amendment questions, That's another discussion entirely. If
> this was not an error, then you have still taken the question way beyond the
> narrow scope I was addressing.
You are correct: I didn't realize/remember/whatever that you were
limiting the remarks to the narrow scope you set forth below.
And on the point you were addressing, I agree with you.
Sorry to have added the fog ...
EBD
> I was answering only as to how the manifestation of Bob's privacy
> interest might impact the argument that the key was no longer a protected
> interest acording to the Smith v. Maryland ruling, and thus unprotected
> by the fourth amendment on those grounds. (Assuming it would even be
> applied to the Bob - Alice relationship in terms of crypto keys).
>
> Your statement "Bob's Fourth Amendment rights are not triggered by his
> contract with Alice." Is probably correct in the event the key is
> obtained from Alice. It may not be if the key is obtained by electronic
> measures or otherwise without a warrant and then the argument is made
> after the fact that Bob has exerted no expectation of privacy over the
> key. This is the key question which bears on the key escrow's
> effect on Bob's protection (Alice in that example being the escrow
> agent). Clearly Alice in that circumstance is unlikely to give up the
> key without a warrant. The real worry is that the authorities are given
> free reign to obtain the key by other methods from Bob, or Bob's
> communications without a warrant by the mere fact that Bob has "tendered"
> the information to Alice (the escrow agent).
>
> Again, I'm addressing the narrow issue of voluntary surrendering of key
> information to an escrow agent and it's effect on the 'third party'
> rule in Smith v. Maryland, not the eventual outcome of an exclusionary
> hearing.
>
> > EBD
> >
> > Not a lawyer on the Net, although I play one in real life.
> > **********************************************************
> > Flame away! I get treated worse in person every day!!
>
> ---
> My prefered and soon to be permanent e-mail address: unicorn@schloss.li
> "In fact, had Bancroft not existed, potestas scientiae in usu est
> Franklin might have had to invent him." in nihilum nil posse reverti
> 00B9289C28DC0E55 E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information
>
>
Not a lawyer on the Net, although I play one in real life.
**********************************************************
Flame away! I get treated worse in person every day!!
Return to December 1995
Return to “tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May)”