CDR: Re: RC4 source as a literate program
Fellow Cypherpunks, THE LAWYER GAMBIT I remember reading in old anti-IRS literature about a technique for avoiding prosecutions. A client would tell a lawyer that he wanted to do something and would ask if it were legal to do. The lawyer would then give his opinion as to wheather it was legal or not. If the lawyer said that it was legal and gave his opinion in writing, then the client could proceed without out worry. The lawyer's opinion would stop any criminal prosecution. I wonder if this would work with publishing crypt code. I think it might put the lawyer at risk. If we had a lawyer who really thought that publishing crypt code on the Internet was legal and wasn't afraid of sticking his neck out then his published statement on the Internet to this might open the floodgates of crypt code Internet posting for Americans. Donald has stated that the law in this area is quite vague. I would think even if the law prohibited it, then the law would be unconstitu- tional and therefore null and void. Any thoughts on this? Yours Truly, Gary Jeffers BEAT STATE!!!! _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Gary Jeffers wrote:
then give his opinion as to wheather it was legal or not. If the lawyer said that it was legal and gave his opinion in writing, then the client could proceed without out worry. The lawyer's opinion would stop any criminal prosecution.
Does this really work? I can't imagine this working for murder (but on the other hand, that's a bad example since it's unreasonable to imagine murder legal in the USA). Even for something like tax laws or other complicated regulations this sounds dubious.
I wonder if this would work with publishing crypt code. I think it might put the lawyer at risk. If we had a lawyer who really thought
Well, a lawyer who advised a client that something was legal when in fact it wasn't might have a problem.
that publishing crypt code on the Internet was legal and wasn't afraid of sticking his neck out then his published statement on the Internet to this might open the floodgates of crypt code Internet posting for Americans.
Such a statement would help, but more because it would be from an expert on the law than because of any legal shield. I am not a lawyer, and so I'd like to have one's opinion before doing anything that could land me in jail. That kind of thing.
Donald has stated that the law in this area is quite vague. I would think even if the law prohibited it, then the law would be unconstitu- tional and therefore null and void.
Prohibiting what - publishing cryptography code? In any case, even if the law is unconstitutional, you may have to go through several layers of court cases to prove it. c.f. Bernstein. :( -David
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Gary Jeffers wrote:
said that it was legal and gave his opinion in writing, then the client could proceed without out worry. The lawyer's opinion would stop any criminal prosecution.
That's never been true, if only prosecutors were that gullible. ____________________________________________________________________ He is able who thinks he is able. Buddha The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
At 1:28 PM -0500 9/5/00, Gary Jeffers wrote:
Fellow Cypherpunks,
THE LAWYER GAMBIT
I remember reading in old anti-IRS literature about a technique for avoiding prosecutions. A client would tell a lawyer that he wanted to do something and would ask if it were legal to do. The lawyer would then give his opinion as to wheather it was legal or not. If the lawyer said that it was legal and gave his opinion in writing, then the client could proceed without out worry. The lawyer's opinion would stop any criminal prosecution.
And the nitwits who believed this are now serving ten to twenty on income tax evasion charges. You really think that if I, for example, were to waste three years of my life getting a law degree and then passing the bar that my advice would absolve someone of criminal charges/ You were a fool several years ago. Apparently the years you were away have not helped. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
I can't fault the accuracy of your comment, Tim. Interestingly enough, however, the usual "it's who you know" seems to control what happens. From a Guest Editorial published today in the Oregonian newspaper by Elizabeth Drew, author of the book "The Corruption of American Politics; What went wrong and why." "In 1996, Common Cause filed a complaint with the Justice Department. It maintained that the soft-money ads themselves violated the law and that there was a clear pattern of coordination between the candidates campaigns and the national committees. Following the usual O.K. Corral scene at the Justic Department, Attorney General Janet Reno--without investigating the complaint--ruled that since the Clinton Campaign had consulted its lawyers, no criminal intent was involved, and closed the case. (FBI Director Louis Freeh, Charles LaBella, Reno's chosen chief prosecutor for the campaign finance task force, and others objected vehembently to this course of nonaction.) Reno bucked the issue over to the feckless Federal Elections Commission, which did what it usually does: nothing." But before the FEC buried the issue, its general counsel, Lawrence Noble, did find that party ads violated election laws and recommended the campaigns repay millions of dollars." [end of quote] The real problem with the "I consulted my lawyer so there's no criminal intent" is that government simply does not follow its own rules. But I've got a solution to that problem. Jim Bell ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net> To: <cypherpunks@cyberpass.net> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 15:34 PM Subject: Re: RC4 source as a literate program
At 1:28 PM -0500 9/5/00, Gary Jeffers wrote:
Fellow Cypherpunks,
THE LAWYER GAMBIT
I remember reading in old anti-IRS literature about a technique for avoiding prosecutions. A client would tell a lawyer that he wanted to do something and would ask if it were legal to do. The lawyer would then give his opinion as to wheather it was legal or not. If the lawyer said that it was legal and gave his opinion in writing, then the client could proceed without out worry. The lawyer's opinion would stop any criminal prosecution.
And the nitwits who believed this are now serving ten to twenty on income tax evasion charges.
You really think that if I, for example, were to waste three years of my life getting a law degree and then passing the bar that my advice would absolve someone of criminal charges/
participants (5)
-
dmolnar -
Gary Jeffers -
jim bell -
Jim Choate -
Tim May