Clive,
If this sort of political crap belongs on cypherpunks instead of this
list please tell me. I'm not so attached to the topic that I can't drop
it.
>
You're right as a matter of exact wording, but implicit in the use of
"obligation", "penal sanctions" "require" etc... is the threat of
incarceration should you try to defy the letter -or- spirit of the law.
Let's say you are directed to produce a threatening e-mail that some
prosecutor has reason to believe you sent. If you say you cannot produce
it you may find yourself compelled to produce the key to an entire disk
drive in order to prove to the court's satisfaction that it is not
there. Should the prosecution be disappointed in the contents of the
e-mail you may also find yourself compelled to produce the key in order
to prove that another "real" copy does not exist. During this exchange
your computer is, of course, in custody and you will be "cooperating",
essentially at gunpoint, in the extraction of the data.
> If you accept the sense in a law to allow law enforcement to seize
> documents with a search warrant, then you should not be able to evade
> the spirit of that law by encrypting the document. This is the direction
> we *should* be pushing at: plaintext under warrant without revealing the
> key.
>
I do not accept the sense of a law allowing law enforcement to seize
"documents" with a warrant. I accept the sense of a law allowing law
enforcement to seize **physical evidence** with a warrant. I think the
point-to-push is that encrypted data is no more than it appears to be
and that if no plaintext copies exist, the plaintext document exists
only in your head as a key to the transformation of the encrypted data.
As such, it should be treated as verbal testimony. I'm no lawyer, that's
just my gut feeling. It comes from a sense that nobody has the right to
poke about inside your head and that, again, a gut feeling, encrypted
data on your computer -is- ( it depends what you mean by the word "is" )
an extension of your memory. If you didn't want it to exist only in your
memory you would leave it in the clear.
The following statements are equally valid:
An encrypted digital document is a document
An encrypted digital document is a memory
When a new technology affords us the opportunity to change the way the
world works why should the change always be away from individual
liberty? Why can't we define the computer as a tool that expands our
individual capabilities and liberties rather than as an evidence logger
for an increasingly snoopish state? The first statement is a costive
view of technology. The latter is one of technology as growth. I'll
stick with my sense of the boundary between an individual and the state.
Even though it might occasionally give some bad guys an edge it keeps
some other guys in check.
Regards,
Mike
