From: Bill Stewart <stewarts@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 20:13:27 +0800
To: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Subject: Re: So, what crypto legislation (if any) is necessary?
Message-ID: <199604040730.XAA21490@dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 10:25 AM 3/29/96 -0800, Jim Bell wrote:
>At 05:49 AM 3/29/96 -0500, Black Unicorn wrote:
>>I thought I would take the time to let everyone know that this is 
>>baseless as well.  Most jurisdictions forbid third parties to reveal 
>>prosecution inquries to the principal for which they are holding 
>>documents or other information.  A VERY few have laws on the books that 
>>require this disclosure.  Switzerland is no longer one of them.
>
>As usual, Unicorn is FOS.  Not entirely in his facts, but in his 
>conclusions.  To "forbit third parties to reveal prosecution inquiries" is 
>an obvious violation of freedom of speech, and in fact is PRIOR RESTRAINT.  
>Maybe Unicorn can't see what's wrong with that, but I can.  It is unclear 
>whether this has ever been tested in court, or whether that test occurred 
>recently.

Black Unicorn is absolutely correct that this is generally the law.
Jim Bell is absolutely correct that laws like this are offensive and outrageous.
Unfortunately, Jim then rants at Unicorn for suggesting that this
would be the case; you'd think he'd be the first to realize that
there are laws out there that are offensive and outrageous and enforced.

>For example, if I ask my ISP to send me an anonymous, encrypted message with 
>the word, "Rosebud" in it to me if he receives any requests to tap my 
>connection, he can do so with no fear of being discovered, because no third 
>party can decrypt the message, know who is is from, or know the real meaning 
>of the word, "Rosebud" in the context of an encrypted, anonymized message.  
>Further, since the whole thing is by pre-arrangement, even I cannot prove 
>(to the satisfaction of a third party) that the message really meant what I 
>would interpret it to mean.  The message is useful to me, as a warning, but 
>it could never turn around and "bite" the ISP.

Now that's an interesting wrinkle to the problem.  I suspect that,
as you suggest, there will be ISPs, especially in non-US jurisdictions,
that are willing to send out "Rosebud" messages to anonymous remailers,
or to fail to send "Remarque" messages, or to debit anonymous accounts
for data retrieval services rendered while also supporting billing-status
checking by anonymous remailers.  From a crypto-anarchist dogmatic perspective,
it'll definitely happen, though there may be a rough transition until
there's enough critical mass to make it undetectable (and note that
"undetectable" is a tougher standard than "untraceable"...)


# Bill Stewart, stewarts@ix.netcom.com, +1-415-442-2215 fax-2527
#
# Spam.  It's what's for dinner.