From: jamesd@echeque.com (James A. Donald)
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 10:43:49 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Leahy bill, legalize crypto
In-Reply-To: <Do5826.46@cruzio.com>
Message-ID: <199603131524.HAA22538@dns2.noc.best.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


schlafly@bbs.cruzio.com sez:
> > It would be nice if the bill put in some user protections, such as
> > requiring notification of the user if the escrow agent divulges his
> > key, but it does not.
>          ^^^^^^^^^^^

eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) wrote:
>False.  See, for instance, proposed section 2802(c)(3)(C).

What copy of the Bill are you reading, Mark?  My copy says that
escrowed keys must be given to the government secretly on demand, NO
WARRANT NEEDED, and the fact that they were given MUST BE KEPT SECRET.

This bill is a small but significant step towards the police state.
If the bill becomes law, no one in their right mind will "voluntarily"
escrow their keys, and then we shall see steadily increasing
compulsion to "voluntarily" escrow keys, like the "voluntary" self
assessment of income tax.

Section 2802(c)
>  "(c) REQUIREMENTS FOR RELEASE OF DECRYPTION KEY TO 
>       INVESTIGATIVE; OR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.-
>
>   "(1) CONTENTS OF WIRE AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS.-
>   A key holder is authorized to release a decryption key 
>   or provide decryption assistance to an investigative or 
>   law enforcement officer authorized by law to conduct 
>   electronic surveillance under chapter 119, only if-
>   [...] or "(ii) a certification in writing by a person 
>   specified in section 2518(7) [...] stating that- "(I) 
>   no warrant or court order is required by law;
>   [...]
>    "(4) NONDISCLOSURE OF RELEASE.-No key holder, officer, employee, or
>   agent thereof shall disclose the key release or provision of
>   decryption assistance pursuant to subsection (b), except as may
>   otherwise be required by legal process and then only after 
>   prior notification to the Attorney General or to the principal 
>   prosecuting attorney of a State or any political subdivision of 
>   a State, as may be appropriate.

Section 2802(c)(3)(C) is worthless piety.

Every time I come back to this bill it looks more and more repressive.

Section 2802(c)(3)(C) reads:

>  "(C) The inventory required to be served pursuant to section
>   2518(8)(d) on persons named in the order or the application under
>   section 2518(7)(b), and such other parties to intercepted
>   communications as the judge may determine, in the interest of
>   justice, shall, in the event that encrypted wire or electronic
>   communications were intercepted, include notice of the fact that
>   during the period of the order or extensions thereof a key to, or
>   decryption assistance for, any encrypted wire or electronic
>   communications of the person or party intercepted was or was not
>   provided by a key holder.

If you chase 2802(c)(3)(C) to its end, you will find that it means
stuff all, like most of the other supposedly freedom protecting
provisions in this act.

Any crypto bill that we could realistically get out of Washington will
substantially reduce liberty.  The best that we can hope for is for
Washington to forget about crypto until it is too late to stop.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because 
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this 
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/jamesd/      James A. Donald       jamesd@echeque.com