Clipper and Entrapment!
Perhaps mandatory encryption will be struck down by a court. It seems to me that if the government portrays this as a "safe" method of encryption criminals can make the claim that they would not have committed crimes if they didn't feel that their encryption was secure. Since the government promotes this false sense of security the government may in fact "create" additional crime. I am not saying that I believe this argument.. it is, however, one that can be made. _ __ __ _ _ _ _ | |___ _ _ | \/ |__ _| | (_)_ _ <*> Jonathan Scott Mallin | |_| / _ \ ' \ | |\/| / _` | | | | ' \ <*> <jmallin@umich.edu> \___/\___/_||_| |_| |_\__,_|_|_|_|_||_| <*> Email for PGP key -> This entire message is (C) 1994 by Jonathan Mallin. Reproduction is <- -> prohibited without express written consent. <-
Jonathan Scott Mallin wrote:
I am not saying that I believe this argument.. it is, however, one that can be made.
No, it isn't. Entrapment isn't simply a matter of law enforcement having something to do with a crime. In order to use entrapment as a defense you would have to prove that the cops went to extraordinary measures to get you to commit a crime that you wouldn't have committed anyway. You'd have to prove that you had no tendency towards the type of crime and/or that you wouldn't have had opportunity to commit it. -- ____ \bi/ Richard Powers \/ rpowers@panix.com
participants (2)
-
Jonathan Scott Mallin -
Wrongway