Roy: I'm a lawyer, and I've not run across any law review articles that discuss cryptography in relation to privacy or Fourth Amendment rights. The classic treatise on Fourth Amendment search and seizure is by LaFave. I haven't looked at it recently, but it might discuss crypto. One "brute-force" approach to the legal literature is to go to the law library and scan the Index to Legal Periodicals, which is organized by subject as well as author. I don't think you'll find anything under crypto, but you'll find LOTS of stuff about the Fourth Amendment. It'll take time, but by scanning the titles of the articles you'll be able to tell if there's anything about crypto. Some law libraries also have an index of recent articles on CD- ROM, which is easier to search but is typically less comprehensive. Also check under the name Tribe, L. Tribe is the nation's leading constitutional scholar IMHO and at the first Conference on Computers, Freedom and Privacy he gave a talk on "technology and the Constitution." I don't recall his talking about crypto at all, but he did use as an example the cases involving privacy and wiretapping, i.e., Olmstead v. U.S., Katz v. U.S. Katz is the case which set forth the notion of "reasonable expectation of privacy." (REP) Tribe was a Supreme Court clerk who worked on this opinion, I believe. Tribe's one-volume treatise, "American Constitutional Law," briefly discusses constitutional dimensions of privacy law in one section. It is good, but only current up to 1988, as I recall. Having said that, it becomes obvious that you may want to focus on the law of REP and how it intersects with technological change. For instance, advocates of Digital Telephony, Clipper et al often make the argument that "we're only trying to maintain the status quo -- we just want to keep the existing practical balance that comes from most communications being plaintext." Yet in the same discussion -- almost in the same breath -- the same advocates of "maintaining the status quo" will remind you that you have NO REP in such things as your hair fibers, DNA obtained from saliva under a postage stamp, etc., and therefore "we don't need a search warrant." Clearly, forensic technologies have improved greatly over the years, but the law has not consistently followed a "status quo" approach. Law enforcement is better described as having a "ratchet" approach; they want to keep all the gains from improvements in forensic and surveillance technology, but not the losses. (I am indebted to Mike Godwin of EFF for this point, which he made publicly in a panel with an Assistant U.S. Attorney back in January.) BTW, keep in mind that there's an (arguably) crucial difference between the privacy implications of something like hair fiber or DNA forensic analysis and encryption/decryption relative to communications. Analyzing my hair fibers reveals no information about anyone else. With most communications there is a threat to the privacy of more than one person. I'm curious -- what's the thesis or general thrust of your article? I could say more, but that's probably enough for now. We can take this discussion to e-mail rather than the list if Cypherpunks find it too tangential. Lee Tien tien@well.sf.ca.us