----- Original Message ----- From: "Trei, Peter" <ptrei@rsasecurity.com> To: "'Black Unicorn'" <unicorn@schloss.li> Cc: <cypherpunks@cyberpass.net> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 7:53 AM Subject: RE: Forced disclosures, document seizures, Right and Wrong.
Thanks for your response. The 'in his direct or indirect control' bit is the part that got lost in the article.
Sure. News articles are the WORST source for legal analysis.
I hope it was clear that I was not looking for ways to deny a court *access* to a piece of information, but rather using the net (prior to a subpoena) as an way to make *sequestration* of a piece of info impossible, by placing copies permanently outside 'his direct or indirect control'.
It was clear. I wanted to make sure to correct the common misconception among cypherpunks that you can just thumb your nose at a court with impunity. I didn't believe that you were exhibiting this behavior, but failing to clear things up often leads to misconceptions by others, who then cite the erroniously intrepreted stuff to support their silly ideas about legal-immune key escrow and etc.
I hope you read Mike's 'Oh pointy one' note carefully; it points out one of the great problems most of us IANAL have with IAAL types - the confusion of laws and court action with right and justice, and actions which are simply unlawful at a given time and place with wrong and injustice.
It's a base conflict. A legal education is the ultimate dose of practical cynicism. It quickly becomes apparent not that the law isn't perfect, but that it is often pretty damn screwed up. American jurisprudence is about _fairness of process_, not justice, or right, or wrong. The frustration that IAAL types usually have is that IANAL types tend to cross the line from criticzing the law to giving legal advice which is more derrived from their dislike for the state of the law than a recognition of what it really is.
Laws and courts are or should be an attempt to map the behaviour of governments to right and justice, but lawyers so often seemed to have been conditioned into thinking they are one and the same, rather than a (very) rough approximation.
Well, again, the legal education process is designed around navigating through the system, not mapping the behavior of governments.
[Case to point: Canter and Siegel claiming that there was nothing wrong with them sending their Green Card spam, since there was no law against it.]
It's possible - indeed essential - for people to argue over right and wrong, justice and injustice without regard for what a given legal and court system says; even a court and legal system which can send Men With Guns after them.
Oh, I wholly agree. And I believe this is a fully valid function for cypherpunks. Unfortunately, it often shifts into "you should design this technical solution" - typically a technical solution which will end the operated in jail. To me the important distinction is to recognize what we want the ideal to be, but avoid running afoul of the law in the process.
Laws do not define Right and Wrong. Courts and Legal Systems do not define Justice.
They are better than nothing at all, but we should never imbue them with divine wisdom. That way lies Tyranny.
Agreed.
Peter Trei