From: jamesd@echeque.com
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 11:07:44 +0800
To: Black Unicorn <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Subject: Re: So, what crypto legislation (if any) is necessary?
Message-ID: <199603291652.IAA10994@dns2.noc.best.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Thu, 28 Mar 1996, jim bell wrote:
> > Escrowing encrypted keys makes them useless to subpoena, and in 
> > fact it helps the key owner because the escrow agent can (and, in fact, 
> > must!) be obligated to inform the key owner if his key is requested.

At 05:49 AM 3/29/96 -0500, Black Unicorn wrote:
> I thought I would take the time to let everyone know that this is 
> baseless as well.  Most jurisdictions forbid third parties to reveal 
> prosecution inquries to the principal for which they are holding 
> documents or other information.  A VERY few have laws on the books that 
> require this disclosure.  Switzerland is no longer one of them.

If you had actually read the article that you criticize you would
have noticed that the "must" was enforced by cryptographic 
protocols, not by the blunt sword of the law.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
              				|  
We have the right to defend ourselves	|   http://www.jim.com/jamesd/
and our property, because of the kind	|  
of animals that we are. True law	|   James A. Donald
derives from this right, not from the	|  
arbitrary power of the state.		|   jamesd@echeque.com