According to Paul Baclace:
typically a court order, to both key escrow authorities. "Typically", of course, means "not always", and it's coupled with the phrase I think they must be implicitly refering to the anti terrorist act which allows surveillence without a court order if national security is involved or if foreign nationals are involved, etc.
Now this is news to me. You mean that they can listen to me if they can rationalize that there is a threat to national security? Here's a scenerio. John Q. Public HAS a copy of pgp and some LEA knows it. It must be that he's some kind of subversive. Therefore, he is a threat to national security. It is therefore legal to infringe on his rights? Maybe this is a bit of exageration...maybe it's not.... +-----------------------+-----------------------------+---------+ | J. Michael Diehl ;-) | I thought I was wrong once. | PGP KEY | | mdiehl@triton.unm.edu | But, I was mistaken. |available| | mike.diehl@fido.org | | Ask Me! | | (505) 299-2282 +-----------------------------+---------+ | | +------"I'm just looking for the opportunity to be -------------+ | Politically Incorrect!" <Me> | +-----If codes are outlawed, only criminals wil have codes.-----+ +----Is Big Brother in your phone? If you don't know, ask me---+