From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 14:47:51 +0800
To: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Subject: Re: So, what crypto legislation (if any) is necessary?
In-Reply-To: <m0u3BoI-0008ypC@pacifier.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960330203524.25376U-100000@polaris.mindport.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Sat, 30 Mar 1996, jim bell wrote:

> At 07:12 PM 3/30/96 -0500, Black Unicorn wrote:

> >> >(d) [which may be a subset of (b)] impose contempt sanctions on the 
> >> >principal until he releases the key to the key.
> >> 
> >> ...which would be a clear violation of the 5th amendment,
> >
> >This is not at all clear. 
> 
> The ONLY reason this is "not at all clear" is because of those 9 
> morons-for-life they have currently sitting in that wasted building near the 
> Congress building have never been particularly careful to follow the rules.  

Yadda yadda yadda.

Mr. Bell the ultimate authority of the U.S. Constitution.  Spare me.
For someone so concerned about Nazis, you sure like centralized power.  
As long as everyone agrees with you, they can live.  Interesting.

(I also think its one of the most beautiful buildings in D.C.)

> I believe that this would be a "clear violation of the 5th amendment."   
> Whether those 9 nincompoops agree is sti

Yadda Yadda Yadda.

> >The data holder is ordered to turn over the data.  He does in this 
> >scenerio, the data is encrypted,
> 
> Actually, he doesn't know this.  As long as the data being held "looks like" 
> random data, and contains no headers, as far as anybody knows it IS random 
> data.  The data holder cannot know.

I didn't say he had to know anything about whether the data was encrypted 
or not.  I would point out that the data holder who is convinced I was 
spending good money to store random bits would probably not be the data 
holder I would pick to hold my data in the first place, but this is a 
tangent, as knowing if the data is encrypted is irrelevent.
But I'm sure my view is just a Nazified one.  In Bellville (Bellview?), 
I'm sure everyone pays money to store megabytes of random data.

>  >LEO goes to the principal, principal 
> >refuses to provide key for the encrypted key that the escrow agent was 
> >holding, compelled discovery is ordered,
> 
> 5th amendment is invoked.

See above.  Because you say the Fifth amendment is applicable doesn't 
make it so.  You are not the Supreme Court (thanks for small blessings and 
all that).  We aren't talking fantasy here, or might be, or would be, we 
are talking about is.  And the system you propose is problematic.

> > now your right back into the 
> >case where the principal never gave the data to the escrow agent in the 
> >first place.
> 
> What you seem to have forgotten is that if the scenario you describe could 
> really occur "in real life," this is all the more reason for ordinary 
> citizens to REFUSE to use any kind of key-escrow system, or to do so in a 
> way which is completely undetectable.

Well, all the more reason for you to REFUSE to pay your taxes, or to do 
so in a way which is completely undetectable.

Easier said than done.  If you want to use this system, be my guest.
Saying the Gestapo is a bad thing doesn't make it magically go away.

> Naturally, you won't address this 
> problem, but the man-on-the-street is more realistic about his own privacy.  
> How many times must I raise this issue?  How many times do you ignore it?  
> Face it, people are smarter than you give them credit for.  They will simply 
> not tolerate any more shit from the government.

Funny, the latest primary has been one of the highest voter turn outs in 
quite a while (except in Deleware).  Considering those are the law-and-order 
types who are most likely to invade personal liberities, I think its a 
bit hard to make the case that the temper of the country is anything but 
very pro-political process.

> Was the government lying to us when they claimed that "key escrow will be 
> voluntary"?  Or was this some odd new usage of the word "voluntary" that 
> only appears in the "Newspeak Dictionary"?

Actually, this usage of "voluntary" dates back something like 50 years.  
The speed limit example, where states "voluntarily" adopt speed limits 
(or suffer a revocation of funds so serious so as to put them in 
receivership) is a classic example.  But as Mr. Bell is too busy looking 
for Nazis, he wasn't doing his homework and so missed this.

His bravado is a poor replacement for basic education.  It's not even 
very good bravado.
 
> With every new post you send, you simply go to prove that every concern that 
> anybody ever had about the government's behavior is potentially reasonable.  
> You really ought to quit while you're behind.

I've never made the case for anything but exactly this.  If I thought 
government behavior was reasonable, I'd not bother posting at all.  I 
just don't call people Nazis and call for murder for hire to solve the 
problem.  That's the resort of infantile mind.  The mind that fills gaps 
with ranting and violence where mental effort is too much of a task.

Again, this will be my last posting on yet another thread.  Mr. Bell has 
devolved again into ranting lunacy and that feedback loop that prevents 
him from confining himself to the merits of the debate.

> Jim Bell
> jimbell@pacifier.com

---
My preferred 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