--
Dark Unicorn:
> > Not a particularly useful answer and not necessarily justifiable on the
> > part of the court. I think eventually a better answer would have to be
> > produced, one that justified the censorship. We're back to what
> > originally struck me as odd, and wrong, about this item. Whoever has her
> > stuff should copy it and move the copy offshore because something is
> > very wrong on the part of the court.
On 31 Jul 2001, at 0:12, Dr. Evil wrote:
> Just because they're wrong and you're right doesn't benefit you at all
> when you are in jail for contempt, losing your ass-cherry. The belief
> to the contrary is what M. Unicorn would call a "classic Cypherpunk
> fallacy". M. Unicorn is absolutely right here. Trusts are a great
> thing which, in this case, allow you to completely achieve what you're
> trying to achieve, while complying all of the court's instructions.
> Use them! Why waste time being an outlaw?
The point of using cryptography such purposes is to make ones non compliance
undetectable, or at least unprovable. Trusts and the like raise a red flag. You are
generating legal documents that advertise your intended non compliance and explain how
you intend to do it.
Further, if authorities really have the hots for you, they can apply pressure to the
trust authority is all sorts of ways. They do not have to comply with the law -- you
do. For example they could kidnap the child of the person holding the trust, and
hint that in return for cooperation they
will overlook the crack they planted on him, carrying a twenty year prison sentence.
Encrypted data with a long passphrase will resist any amount of pressure. Legal
solutions will not.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
MkiOliQYRoCsvFgXrPssDQkVSSND546JvVIRynLL
46tYSopIdwQ4wSNumiw8frcVouKamWs1caYcGGMD4
