On Sun, 10 Dec 1995, Brian Davis wrote:
On Fri, 8 Dec 1995, Black Unicorn wrote:
On Thu, 7 Dec 1995, Jeff Weinstein wrote:
Black Unicorn wrote:
On Thu, 7 Dec 1995, sameer wrote:
How about if Bob had a contractual agreement with Alice to keep his key secret?
Then as a defense attorney, I would argue that Bob had an obvious expectation of privacy with Alice, and that the fact that he relayed this key to Alice only under those circumstances represents a definite expression of his intent to keep the key private, thus triggering 4th amendment protections. My view is that this would be a very strong argument.
Bob's Fourth Amendment rights are not triggered by his contract with Alice. Alice can be compelled to give up the key (by testimony or production) and giving up that key does not tend to incriminate *Alice* in a violation of law. Alice can't invoke Bob's rights against self-incrimination for obvious reasons: Alice isn't Bob. ^^^^
You've taken the narrow answer I was trying to give out of context. As for fifth amendment questions, That's another discussion entirely. If this was not an error, then you have still taken the question way beyond the narrow scope I was addressing. I was answering only as to how the manifestation of Bob's privacy interest might impact the argument that the key was no longer a protected interest acording to the Smith v. Maryland ruling, and thus unprotected by the fourth amendment on those grounds. (Assuming it would even be applied to the Bob - Alice relationship in terms of crypto keys). Your statement "Bob's Fourth Amendment rights are not triggered by his contract with Alice." Is probably correct in the event the key is obtained from Alice. It may not be if the key is obtained by electronic measures or otherwise without a warrant and then the argument is made after the fact that Bob has exerted no expectation of privacy over the key. This is the key question which bears on the key escrow's effect on Bob's protection (Alice in that example being the escrow agent). Clearly Alice in that circumstance is unlikely to give up the key without a warrant. The real worry is that the authorities are given free reign to obtain the key by other methods from Bob, or Bob's communications without a warrant by the mere fact that Bob has "tendered" the information to Alice (the escrow agent). Again, I'm addressing the narrow issue of voluntary surrendering of key information to an escrow agent and it's effect on the 'third party' rule in Smith v. Maryland, not the eventual outcome of an exclusionary hearing.
EBD
Not a lawyer on the Net, although I play one in real life. ********************************************************** Flame away! I get treated worse in person every day!!
--- My prefered and soon to be permanent e-mail address: unicorn@schloss.li "In fact, had Bancroft not existed, potestas scientiae in usu est Franklin might have had to invent him." in nihilum nil posse reverti 00B9289C28DC0E55 E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information