From: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 95 13:34:58 PST
To: tcmay@got.net
Subject: Re: GAK and Self-Incrimination?
Message-ID: <01HYKKMGLV4Q9S3T6Q@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


From:	IN%"tcmay@got.net"  8-DEC-1995 13:28:32.69

Given that GAK means one never knows if the government is listening, could
a person claim protection against self-incrimination as a reason to not use
GAK, and get away with it? (This is different from the phone system, which
may also be tapped. The analogy would be the same if the government forced
one to pick a telephone it could tap over one it could not, which so far
has not been the case, but which soon may be if switching systems which are
not compliant with Digital Telephony Act provisions are shut down.)

Consider this hypo: I send an encrypted message to a partner in crime
containing plans for future crimes and descriptions of past crimes. I don't
GAK the message. The government prosecutes me under the Anti-Terrorism and
Child Protection Act of 1997.

My defense? That GAKKing the message would be tantamount to incriminating
myself, which the Fifth Amendment protects me against.
-------------------
	There is the problem with this argument that personal diaries have
recently (Packwood) been found to not fall under the Fifth amendment. However,
IA(most definitely)NAL.
	-Allen