From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 20:02:36 +0800
To: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Subject: Re: So, what crypto legislation (if any) is necessary?
In-Reply-To: <m0u3AZL-0008yEC@pacifier.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960330190621.25376O-100000@polaris.mindport.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Sat, 30 Mar 1996, jim bell wrote:

> At 02:19 PM 3/30/96 -0500, Black Unicorn wrote:
> >On Sat, 30 Mar 1996 JonWienke@aol.com wrote:

> >> principals are still safe.  The escrow agent doesn't have to send any
> >> encrypted "rosebud" message to anyone, and he can bend over backwards to make
> >> the LEO's happy, so his butt is covered, too.  At this point, the LEO's can
> >> either (a) send the keys to the NSA for decryption, and thereby admit that
> >> the gov't can break IDEA (or whatever cryptosystem was used to encrypt the
> >> keys before the escrow agent got them), (b) rubber hose the unencrypted
> >> key(s) from the principal, or (c) go home and pout.
> >
> >(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.  Infact, there is good evidence it goes the other 
way.

Mr. Bell, again, needs to learn law.
Seems even Nazis know it better than he.

> and would (by 
> informing the person targeted) defeat the entire purpose of getting the key 
> in the first place.

Considering by this time the encryped data would have been seized as 
evidence, I doubt this makes much difference.
Hey, call me a Nazi.


> Of course, you've also assumed that the escrowed data 
> actually represents some sort of key, which it may not. (The data-holder is 
> never told that the data he's asked to hold is REALLY a key!)  

The data holder is ordered to turn over the data.  He does in this 
scenerio, the data is encrypted, LEO goes to the principal, principal 
refuses to provide key for the encrypted key that the escrow agent was 
holding, compelled discovery is ordered, now your right back into the 
case where the principal never gave the data to the escrow agent in the 
first place.

In short, useless expense.
Very un-Nazi like.  Which is, of course, why I oppose it.


> Insisting that the target of an investigation provide something that may 
> not even exist is a sure way to fire up the populace.  Remember Madame 
> Defarge (sp?)

Ah yes, the final resort.  Grab the pitchforks and torches!
And he calls me a Nazi.
 
> 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