From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 14:20:33 +0800
To: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Subject: Re: So, what crypto legislation (if any) is necessary?
Message-ID: <m0u2lXz-0008yYC@pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 05:32 AM 3/29/96 -0500, Black Unicorn wrote:
>On Thu, 28 Mar 1996, jim bell wrote:
>
>> At 03:46 PM 3/28/96 -0500, Black Unicorn wrote:

>> >Given the significant contempt charges that can follow a refusal to 
>> >produce items (anonymous or not) this still depends on the absence of 
>> >initial detection.
>> 
>> You clearly don't understand.  You're making the ASSumption that the 
>> organization keeping the keys can produce them in a form that is "useful" to 
>> the cops.  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.
>
>You clearly don't understand.  You are an ass making an assumption that a 
>court cares or believes that the witness can actually produce the 
>requested information or not.  Fines tend to be imposed regardless.

Bullets don't care that a judge was justified in his decisions, either.  

Ultimately, your repeated argument is simply, "The legal system can be 
abused by those who work in it."  I don't challenge this claim, in fact my 
position depends on its truth; my assertion  is that the current legal situation is 
out of the control of people faithful to the meaning of the Constitution, 
and has been so for a long time.  One of the main reasons I promote a 
de-facto (and unofficial) death penalty for recalcitrant politicians and 
other government employees is because the traditional "checks and balances" 
system seems to no longer be working for the interests of the average citizen.


>> And in any case, I consider it highly doubtful that anybody would contract 
>> with an escrow agent and identify himself by name
>
>The same way no one creates Panamanian companies with their own name.  So 
>what?  Third parties are still fined heavily.

Any specific examples?  No?  I thought so!  In any case, if "third parties" 
are "fined heavily," that is even more justification for setting up a method 
to deter out-of-control courts.  Remember, freedom is always strongly 
disliked by authoritarian and totalitarian governments; you need to explain 
why the hypotheticals you're describing don't indicate that some emergency 
effort is needed.


>>It would be a simple 
>> matter to operate "escrow agents," just glorified data-holders, who would 
>> receive data anonymously and send it out just as anonymously, to the person 
>> who can identify themselves via some sort of encrypted ID system.
>
>And simpler for courts to fine them out of existance (which happened to 
>several banks, trust companies and agents in Cayman and Panama.

I guess you really don't realize that every claim you make demolishes the 
justification for your obvious hostility to a system which prevents exactly 
the kind of abuses you list.  (Although it really isn't clear whether you 
would classify them as "abuses.")

>   Even 
>> "detecting" such a transfer is useless because the cops won't be able to 
>> figure out what the data is, since it's encrypted in both directions while 
>> being transferred, in addition to being encrypted while being held, with a 
>> code the escrow agent doesn't know.
>
>They need only suspect or have reason to suspect it might be exculpatory.
_                                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^
Sloppy word usage.  I think you meant, "incriminating."  Typical for you.

>Practically speaking this means convincing a judge.  Not hard when the 
>words "offshore holding company" are mentioned in a brief or hearing.
>
>> In short, you need to comprehend what you're responding to before you 
>> express your opinions.  You're living down to my expectations.
>
>In short, go to law school, then try to talk about legal issues.

In this day and in this country, "going to law school" is basically 
synonymous with "learn to get along with the current legal system."  It 
should have been obvious long ago that I don't consider the current legal 
system to be worth living with.


>> >> In fact, I suppose that government operation of the identification system
>> >> (drivers' licenses, passports, etc.) in general is also horribly inefficient
>> >> and should be attacked on efficiency grounds.
>> >
>> >You might not like what you get in response.  Streamlined and uniform 
>> >identity documents generated at birth and renewed with tax filings would 
>> >be the likeliest efficiency improvement.  An inefficient government 
>> >identification system is to the advantage of the privacy seeker.
>> 
>> You seem to be ASSuming that an "efficient identification system" is one 
>> that will ALSO operate to the benefit of the government, as opposed to the 
>> individual who wants to be identified for only limited purposes.
>
>Without getting into semantics, and "efficient identification system" 
>implies one that identifies people efficently.  Blocking government use, 
>or limiting it to certain circumstances is not efficiency.

Only if viewed from the statist perspective, which I suppose is easy for 
you.  An "efficient identification system" identifies me, efficiently, to 
anybody I _choose_ to be identified to, to whatever level of identification 
I choose to allow.  Nothing more.   Read Chaum's Sci Am article, carefully.