1997-10-24 - Re: GMR in the talked-about form here would be unconstitutional
Header Data
From: lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke)
To: cypherpunks@Algebra.COM
Message Hash: 8ab338337c1e541d7ddbd994fcb158bb1dd376cc9da948f822992ea4db72ec5b
Message ID: <slrn651o7h.1vk.lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de>
Reply To: <v03102807b07688340782@[207.167.93.63]>
UTC Datetime: 1997-10-24 18:13:58 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 02:13:58 +0800
Raw message
From: lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke)
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 02:13:58 +0800
To: cypherpunks@Algebra.COM
Subject: Re: GMR in the talked-about form here would be unconstitutional
In-Reply-To: <v03102807b07688340782@[207.167.93.63]>
Message-ID: <slrn651o7h.1vk.lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
* Tim May wrote:
>- a patient and doctor who discuss private medical conditions will be
>discussing them with the Thought Police
[...]
>Will a "must encrypt to government key" provision pass constitutional
>muster? I don't think so.
In common enviroments smartcards are used for the example above. Those
smartcards can be only obtained by TTPs, which generate the key pair and
press the secret part on the card. In several countries these TTP are
required to store these private keys for gouvernmental access.
Shure, it's constitutional. You will need a court order to read a special
message with the revealed secret key.
It does not harm, that policy may able to read all previous messages, if
they are stored, because this can't happen. The police is forbitten to do so.
Thread
Return to October 1997
- Return to “Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>”
- Return to “Bill Stewart <stewarts@ix.netcom.com>”
- Return to “Kent Crispin <kent@bywater.songbird.com>”
- Return to “lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke)”
- Return to “mark@unicorn.com”
Return to “Tim May <tcmay@got.net>”
- 1997-10-24 (Fri, 24 Oct 1997 21:25:52 +0800) - Re: PGP Employee on MKR - mark@unicorn.com
- 1997-10-24 (Fri, 24 Oct 1997 23:54:20 +0800) - Re: PGP Employee on MKR - Kent Crispin <kent@bywater.songbird.com>
- 1997-10-24 (Sat, 25 Oct 1997 01:30:52 +0800) - GMR in the talked-about form here would be unconstitutional - Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
- 1997-10-24 (Sat, 25 Oct 1997 02:13:58 +0800) - Re: GMR in the talked-about form here would be unconstitutional - lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke)
- 1997-10-24 (Sat, 25 Oct 1997 03:09:52 +0800) - unconstitutional? try this variant…(Re: GMR in the talked-about form here would be unconstitutional) - Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
- 1997-10-28 (Tue, 28 Oct 1997 19:00:26 +0800) - Re: unconstitutional? try this variant…(Re: GMR in the talked-about form here would be unconstitutional) - Bill Stewart <stewarts@ix.netcom.com>