Scientology/Wollersheim as test case for key disclosure
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Andrew Loewenstern writes:
Modemac writes: Mr. Wollersheim has stated that he will go to jail before he reveals his encryption key. [...snip...] Call this one: BIG WIN FOR PGP!
Could this be it? The test case for forced key disclosure? The Scientologists seem very determined and already have a grudge against Wollersheim (according to a web page I saw Co$ owes him several million from a settlement). Has Co$ filed against Wollersheim over this yet?
If this does go to court and forcing Wollersheim to reveal the key becomes a central issue, is this the test case "we" want? Is this a "BIG WIN FOR PGP!" or not?
Well, since it's (apparently) a civil case against Wollersheim, the potential Fifth Amendment self-incrimination issues may be murkier, so this may not be a good test case for the criminal context. In federal civil trials, material reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence is discoverable unless there's an applicable privilege - this means that in a civil case, a defendant may be forced to hand over material likely to expose them to liabilty. (The Fifth Amendment privilege against criminal self-incrimination still applies). I'm not sure that key disclosure will even be necessary - the Church (or whatever annoying tentacle of it is suing Wollersheim) is entitled to, for example, "a copy of . . . all documents, data compilations, and tangible things in the possession, custody, or control of the party that are relevant to disputed facts alleged with particularity in the pleadings" (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B)). I don't see why Wollersheim couldn't comply with the discovery rules by providing plaintext copies of all relevant information, unless for some reason the passphrase is itself relevant. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMFFFG33YhjZY3fMNAQGmLAP/S412cBRTRFRWou6mVjh7jbT9O3CIUPEB oFuDLNy7pQR2ZaR5JOzSsCv9d96CpGdVjIWUxhP/Fz6tN3ZP7LuCXBssoIuiyuEp z2e+LQthjcksUDqipR+QggIhN3hU66esg14WCF61yjwpXCukn13cOISYtBHRjc9g sEiN0SXZ4tw= =knU6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Sat, 9 Sep 1995, Greg Broiles wrote:
the pleadings" (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B)). I don't see why Wollersheim couldn't comply with the discovery rules by providing plaintext copies of all relevant information, unless for some reason the passphrase is itself relevant.
Ah. but if there is no plaintext, the question is whether you comply with the rule by providing the encrypted text rather than plaintext. I would say you have to provide the plaintext in the absence of a legitimate privilege claim, but I don't recall a case to this effect (there is precedent for requiring translation of foreign language documents when the request is covered by an evidence conention; I don't recall if there are any such cases that fall purely under domestic US rules). Anyone have chapter and verse? A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | mfroomki@umiami.ir.miami.edu U. Miami School of Law | P.O. Box 248087 | It's hot here. And humid. Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | See (soon to move to its real home): http://www.law.miami.edu/~mfroomki
For some reason I think it was French, but I don't have a citation either. But I think you're right. MacN On Sat, 9 Sep 1995, Michael Froomkin wrote:
Ah. but if there is no plaintext, the question is whether you comply with the rule by providing the encrypted text rather than plaintext. I would say you have to provide the plaintext in the absence of a legitimate privilege claim, but I don't recall a case to this effect (there is precedent for requiring translation of foreign language documents when the request is covered by an evidence conention; I don't recall if there are any such cases that fall purely under domestic US rules). Anyone have chapter and verse?
A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | mfroomki@umiami.ir.miami.edu U. Miami School of Law | P.O. Box 248087 | It's hot here. And humid. Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | See (soon to move to its real home): http://www.law.miami.edu/~mfroomki
One solution to this problem would be to modify PGP so that the session key for the document was released rather than the passphrase for the public key. The former would provide only read access, the latter would allow th scientologists to forge Wollerstein's signature on other material. In addition many of the documents may be subject to privillege. I would have thought that there would be grounds to oppose the court action in any case on various grounds, not least the previous judgement which the Scientologists lost and have failed to pay the damages awarded. There might also be grounds to oppose disclosure if the case was brought in order to obtain secret material rather than for legitimate purposes. In the UK the judge can be asked to review documents and decide whether they should be made avaliable. Surely the disclosure laws would work in wollerstein's favour in any case. He can request disclosure of internal Scientology material. Phill
participants (4)
-
Greg Broiles -
hallam＠w3.org -
Mac Norton -
Michael Froomkin