From: fnorky@geocities.com (Douglas L. Peterson)
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 12:55:36 +0800
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Subject: Re: More on House Intelligence committee amendment on crypto
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970911152027.12105Z-100000@well.com>
Message-ID: <3422b46b.109964168@mail.geocities.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



On Thu, 11 Sep 1997 15:38:30 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:

>So I'm reading through the 43-page amendment to SAFE that the House
>Intelligence committee approved today. It includes: 
>
>* Ban on sale of crypto without a backdoor. Five year & fine (maybe
>$250,000?) if violated. Prosecutions can be held in closed-door
>courtrooms, publishers of info about case to be held in contempt of court.
>
>* Federal government computer purchases must use key escrow "immediate
>decryption" after 1998. Same with network established w/Federal funds.
>
>* Such products can be labeled "authorized for sale to U.S. government"
>
>* U.S. government may "not mandate the use of encryption standards" for
>the private sector
>
>* Export decisions aren't subject to judicial review
>
>* Defense & Commerce have controls of exports of crypto
>
>* Establishes Encryption Industry and Information Security Board
>
>* Internet providers, key recovery centers aren't liable if they turn over
>keys following legal standards
>
>* President can negotiate int'l agreements, perhaps punish noncompliant
>governments
>
>I'm still reading... More details shortly...
>
>-Declan
>

How can a law, or how it is applied be exempt from judicial review?
If I understand the first amendment correctly, this is not legal.

AMENDMENT I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 

Article III, section 2 of the Constitution states:

1. ***The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity,
arising under this constitution, the laws of the United States, and
treaties made, or which shall be made under their authority***; to all
cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; to
all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies
to which the United States shall be a party; [to controversies between
two or more states, between a state and citizens of another state,
between citizens of different states, between citizens of the same
state, claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a
state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or
subjects.]

The 11th Amendment didn't change the part between the *'s.

If this is correct, any law that Congress would make that prevented me
from seeking judicial review would be unconstitutional.

-Doug


-------------------
Douglas L. Peterson
mailto:fnorky@geocities.com
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Heights/1271/