In response and affirmation of Eric Fogleman's note on Communications Policy, I have to concur. ALL documents produced by a public official operating an email system on public time and in pursuit of public policy (e.g. a White House official) should be subject to scrutiny and should not be considered as that person's private property. If such a person wants to have private communications with other private citizens, they should do it on their OWN time and with their OWN money. HOWEVER, if such persons then turn around and abuse this freedom by abusing the public trust in those contexts (i.e. if Ollie North started communicating with NSA officials through CompuServe to order illegal shipments of money to CIA agents in Peruvian cocaine cartels), they should, by virtue of their positions of public trust be subject to the same (presumably high) levels of scrutiny as they are now - Congressional, OMB, GSA, FBI investigations, etc.
The burden should not be on individuals to constantly be open to scrutiny to demonstrate their innocence, but on those with the power to suspend individual rights.
Yes, private citizens should not be subject to the same sorts of investigations unless there is direct evidence of criminal intent or activity in which case there should be a search warrant and notification of intent to search. Tim May notes (appropriately) that:
Strong crypto means even Ollie North can fully protect his records.
Yes, but shouldn't he be _required_ to "open" his files if he is under criminal investigation just like a drug-dealer who's required to open the locked trunk of his car? I'm sure my opinion is open to development, but this is my gut-level response. dave
deltorto@aol.com writes:
Yes, private citizens should not be subject to the same sorts of investigations unless there is direct evidence of criminal intent or activity in which case there should be a search warrant and notification of intent to search.
Tim May notes (appropriately) that:
Strong crypto means even Ollie North can fully protect his records.
Yes, but shouldn't he be _required_ to "open" his files if he is under criminal investigation just like a drug-dealer who's required to open the locked trunk of his car?
Well, there are really two conflicting issues here: 1) The Fifth Amendment - the right not to testify against yourself, hence the Miranda warning when you're arrested. You can claim that being forced to decrypt your hard disk by the cops violates your Fifth Amendment rights, and refuse to decrypt it. 2) Obstruction of Justice - by not handing over the key to your hard disk, you may be obstructing an investigation. By not decrypting your hard disk under court order, you maybe be held in contempt of court. Number 2 may work for law enforcement if they are investigation a third party and ask to see your hard disk in order to help their investigation. A good example is an Internet site that is being used as a telnet launch-pad by some hacker. If that site refuses to cooperate and keeps their files encrypted, the police/court may charge you with obstruction of justice or contempt of court. HOWEVER, if you feel that by decrypting these files, you would be providing testimony/evidence against yourself, you can plead the 5th, and tell them to go screw themselves. Thug
On Thu, 21 Jan 1993, Murdering Thug wrote:
deltorto@aol.com writes:
Tim May notes (appropriately) that:
Strong crypto means even Ollie North can fully protect his records.
[Jeez, I feel like taking this to alt.cascade...]
Yes, but shouldn't he be _required_ to "open" his files if he is under criminal investigation just like a drug-dealer who's required to open the locked trunk of his car?
Well, there are really two conflicting issues here:
1) The Fifth Amendment - [legal summary elided]
2) Obstruction of Justice - [again] . . .
Number 2 may work for law enforcement if they are investigation a third party and ask to see your hard disk in order to help their investigation. A good example is an Internet site that is being used as a telnet launch-pad by some hacker. If that site refuses to cooperate and keeps their files encrypted, the police/court may charge you with obstruction of justice or contempt of court. HOWEVER, if you feel that by decrypting these files, you would be providing testimony/evidence against yourself, you can plead the 5th, and tell them to go screw themselves.
I believe the only way for the autorities to get around that is to grant you immunity for whatever you reveal (if giving crypto keys is held to be more like giving testimony against one's self than like opening a car trunk). They did it for Ollie North, and he used that to get a later conviction thrown out. To bring this back to crypto, the ability of authorities to compel testimony from people by granting them immunity is a _great_ argument for remailers not even keeping records. Joe
participants (3)
-
deltorto＠aol.com -
Joe Thomas -
thug＠phantom.com