On 3/28/2015 5:50 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: >> For example, there is no mandate anywhere that people should keep a >> copy of their private letters in some kind of archive, so that they >> could later be found when the police asks for it. > > But if they *did* keep a copy they could be compelled to reveal it if > the state had probable cause or a warrant. The technology to actually > retain copies was beyond the horizon of the framers.
And it should be noted that compelling disclosure in this way is fundamentally different from prohibiting/defeating protection against lesser efforts. That is, being required to produce encryption keys is not the same as being required to use encryption that does not provide serious protection. (A backdoor is an example of not being serious.) This is probably obvious, but I think it worth noting, since I see it at the core of the encrypt-everything/don't-allow-it debate. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ perpass mailing list perpass@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass
