From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 00:12:40 +0800
To: Simon Spero <declan+@CMU.EDU>
Subject: Re: So, what crypto legislation (if any) is necessary? (Was List O' , shame)
Message-ID: <m0u1R2u-00091aC@pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 08:14 AM 3/25/96 -0800, Simon Spero wrote:
>
>If the Leahy bill is unacceptable, what legistlation is necessary? I 
>can't see how the use of cryptography in the commission of a crime needs 
>to be a separate offence, but I could see how it could be treated as a 
>special circumstance - that doesn't really needed a new law though.
>
>I do feel that it should be possible for courts to sub poena crypto keys, 
>but that doesn't really need new law either 

If you really believe that, then what happens when "they" argue that crypto 
keys MUST be kept, because if they are not kept they can't be subpoenaed?  
If a manufacturer proposes building a crypto telephone where no keys are 
kept after they call ends, then it seems to me that he'd be accused of 
thwarting some "right" to courts' access to keys.  

If you disagree with this line of reasoning, then why did you say that last 
line above?  Read it carefully; remember, you wrote it.

Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com