[I could find no instance in the cypherpunks archives of this thread. Forgive me if I've erred.] As single chip crypto devices are now available (e.g., smart cards) it is not unreasonable to ask how the implantation of advanced bio-chips may challenge current notions of civil liberties. A key US legal assumption of privacy is that one has an unlimited right to one's thoughts but limited rights to ones ideas reduced to tangible form and to communications. (The threads regarding the ability of the courts to cause the a witness to disgorge a crypto key are closely related.) Another civil liberty is the assumption that one owns and controls one's body (unless arrested/imprisoned) and the government may not alter or injure your body. Most citizens and hopefully the courts would find invasion of this most sacrosanct part of one's being are repugnant. An implied aspects of the privacy-crypto debate is that mechanical/electronic devices outside of one's body are required for use of crypto. But what happens if a person's body is augmented for various purposes, including data storage, crypto and communications? Unless a proven crime were committed via these devices, is it feasible that a person could be forced to submit to removal of an implant or to disgorge their data contents? --Steve PGP mail preferred, see http://web.mit.edu/network/pgp.html PGP Fingerprint: FE 90 1A 95 9D EA 8D 61 81 2E CC A9 A4 4A FB A9 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Schear (N7ZEZ) | Internet: azur@netcom.com 7075 West Gowan Road | Voice: 1-702-658-2654 Suite 2148 | Fax: 1-702-658-2673 Las Vegas, NV 89129 | --------------------------------------------------------------------- God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; The courage to change the things I can; The weapons that make the difference; And the wisdom to hide the bodies of the people that got in my way;-) "Surveilence is ultimately just another form of media, and thus, potential entertainment." --G. Beato "We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true." -- Dr. Robert Silensky
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Fri, 18 Jul 1997, Steve Schear wrote:
Another civil liberty is the assumption that one owns and controls one's body (unless arrested/imprisoned) and the government may not alter or injure your body. Most citizens and hopefully the courts would find invasion of this most sacrosanct part of one's being are repugnant.
An implied aspects of the privacy-crypto debate is that mechanical/electronic devices outside of one's body are required for use of crypto. But what happens if a person's body is augmented for various purposes, including data storage, crypto and communications? Unless a proven crime were committed via these devices, is it feasible that a person could be forced to submit to removal of an implant or to disgorge their data contents?
It depends on the circumstances. If there was any way to extract the contents of the implant or decrypt anything encrypted using a key stored in the implant without resorting to surgery, it would probably be legal to force the suspect to cooperate (assuming that requiring someone to turn over a crypto key is legal). Extracting the contents of the implant without using surgery is non-intrusive and probably legal. However, if the only way to recover the needed data is to physically remove the implant from the suspect's body (though this wouldn't be very practical for the user), it would be very difficult for LEAs to do this legally. In one U.S. Supreme Court decision, Winston v. Lee, it was decided that the State did not have the authority to require someone not convicted of a crime to submit to surgery so that a bullet could be extracted from his body and possibly be used as evidence. There are exceptions, but the situation would have to be extreme enough to warrant the severe intrusion. I would imagine that this ruling would apply to a situation where someone had an implant with information that could be used as evidence. There isn't much difference, IMO, between extracting a bullet that has information in the form of caliber and unique markings useful in a ballistics test and extracting a data implant that has information electronically stored. Mark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBM8/+tizIPc7jvyFpAQGueAf+MVxTDpU3oGKmZTQsW+9rVoEguxsT18z6 cPrexE9CisABXKxKgcTN23/b7VBwvQNxlirLi5iCDIjYBdSQXXcqDUVAi1jRLR80 49vOK+/BUvj3FepqsT9tuNEN5s41XnmsOCh0NF0M0/QBtInHpMOjcktl0hyp5dkS 1ik7mRV4+Dia6kYH29UJRxbQYw8Bx8dsTmyMVQrOeJd/JV7TWtjVptPvkNcG+d/x Ktsqv0ibXqQyewoT+lyiueg1BOjXVRXE71LGNvXpKDqio468d09AtuV20qqgo7Fs ryUst1wSXuzbKKS5bN+B8rNXauWIn6ayjib92IgFLlzCo9aaYOmdVw== =xEGX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Fri, 18 Jul 1997, Steve Schear wrote:
[I could find no instance in the cypherpunks archives of this thread. Forgive me if I've erred.]
As single chip crypto devices are now available (e.g., smart cards) it is not unreasonable to ask how the implantation of advanced bio-chips may challenge current notions of civil liberties.
I suggested using a chip which derived the equivalent of a passphrase from brainwaves (when you are calm) - SF now, but in a few years... And there may be opportunites to make it tamperproof - if removed it is detected and data destroyed, or make removal all but impossible without killing the patient. --- reply to tzeruch - at - ceddec - dot - com ---
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <97Jul18.203330edt.32258@brickwall.ceddec.com>, on 07/18/97 at 08:33 PM, Nobody <nobody@rigel.cyberpass.net> said:
On Fri, 18 Jul 1997, Steve Schear wrote:
[I could find no instance in the cypherpunks archives of this thread. Forgive me if I've erred.]
As single chip crypto devices are now available (e.g., smart cards) it is not unreasonable to ask how the implantation of advanced bio-chips may challenge current notions of civil liberties.
I suggested using a chip which derived the equivalent of a passphrase from brainwaves (when you are calm) - SF now, but in a few years...
And there may be opportunites to make it tamperproof - if removed it is detected and data destroyed, or make removal all but impossible without killing the patient.
Hmmmm ... Waco ... Ruby Ridge .... It would seem that murdering US Citizens is an excepted investigation tatic of the federal government these days. Unfortunatly I don't see things changing any time in the future. "Why is it you can never find the Plutonium Disinfectant when you need it?" - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBM9AFH49Co1n+aLhhAQHLzAP+MnJLzIicTuACxj0ey0QHFDWLN0/+1qeW ihNU0UmY0FTX22CHcefQVFa/KwPuYymXxunIFplgdl/fRRjP6kzvUM4JQnJxmJv/ WmxEX56aMGlNab0egem5miHN+DKexOf2odwcggj2sBAGu1H2nHwUY0/ikXC27OzN xiQpm2NfQRU= =RRlR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hmmmm ... Waco ... Ruby Ridge .... It would seem that murdering US Citizens is an excepted investigation tatic of the federal government these days. Unfortunatly I don't see things changing any time in the future.
Citizen sanitization and removal of undesirable citizen-units is often necessary to meet the legitimate concerns of law enforcement, surely any reasonable person would realise that. Datacomms Technologies data security Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"
participants (5)
-
Mark M. -
Nobody -
Paul Bradley -
Steve Schear -
William H. Geiger III