From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 12:51:55 +0800
To: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Subject: [Yadda Yadda Yadda] Re: OS/2 encryption utilities
In-Reply-To: <m0uAnQG-0008yqC@pacifier.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960420215800.13247A-100000@polaris.mindport.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Sat, 20 Apr 1996, jim bell wrote:

> At 06:08 PM 4/20/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote:

> >Were I a Co$ attorney, I would use this to bring discovery violations 
> >if I took you to court.
> 
> You know, I've always thought it odd how some people misuse the English 
> language when they speak in their chosen shorthand.  "bring discovery 
> violations"?  How, exactly, does one _BRING_ a "discovery violation"?   
> Like, maybe, bring it in a whellbarrow?!?   Is "bring" a proper word in this 
> context?  Why not stop using that silly shorthand.

Perhaps Mr. Bell would have been happier if I had said "bring forth a 
motion calling for measures to deal with the defendant's supposed 
conduct in bad faith in answering the discovery requests presented by the 
plaintiff."  Somehow, however, I doubt it.

Like I told Mr. Bell before, when he starts paying my hourly rate, I will 
copyedit all my posts.

> BTW, you seem to have forgotten that this would be an excellent way to deter 
> the kind of "knock and smash" warrant service common amongst government 
> thugs.  Any argument by the cops that "we must break down the door or else 
> they'll erase the data!" is rendered obviously silly if the data is ALREADY 
> encrypted and inaccessible.

This requires the assumption that all the data is already encrypted, not 
an assumption a prosecutor or private litigant is about to make.  The 
case will then become one of a defendant with a reputation for concealing 
or otherwise destroying evidence, and a private litigant would be quite 
justified in calling for measures to preserve what evidence might have 
thusfar survived encryption.

 If anything, it would make the data permanently 
> inaccessible since it would make (arguably) the release of a decrypt key 
> "incriminating" if it were a criminal case. 

Well then, next time I am involved in a civil or criminal case I will just 
suggest that the defendant simply encrypt all his documents, burn the paper 
and then turn over the cyphertext to the plaintiff to comply with 
discovery.  Now the plaintiff will be powerless to touch us.  In a 
criminal case, the defendant will be protected completely from 
prosecution by the Fifth Amendment.  I will win _every case_, I will be 
famous!  They will call for me all over the world.  I will then use my 
profits to buy a massive ice maker, and freeze the planet's water 
supply.  Those humans will have to come to me for their precious 
commodity.  We can make billions on the sale of ice melters, and the 
franchise rights to our chain of fast water stores will be 
priceless!  We will _take over the world_.

Muwahahaha.

Pinky:  "But Brain, why don't we just buy a pack of cards?  I like cards."

(What color is the sky in your world Mr. Bell?)

> Yet another excellent reason to encrypt the data is that it deters 
> burglaries, where the purpose of the burglary is to get this data illegally. 
>  Given the COS's history, that is a reasonable fear.
> 
> 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
Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: jimbell@pacifier.com