Re: Op-ed on encryption: Privacy is no longer an argument
At 03:10 PM 09/23/2001 -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2001, Bill Stewart wrote:
It is bait and switch, but the argument is that if the cops have keys to the house of the guy who drove the car into yours, they can go see if he's got any co-conspirators and arrest them, so the risk of getting caught is a deterrent to wouldbe co-conspirators in future wouldbe crimes, and meanwhile it lets the cops look good by catching the guys who helped do it.
I think driving through my house qualifies as 'probable cause' to search his house IF there is evidence or a clear line of reasoning that it couldn't be done alone...
Well, of course. But the analogy here was comparing house keys to crypto, which, unlike houses, can only be opened and searched if the cops have access to the keys, or if somebody left the back door open or used weak enough crypto for brute force to let them break in.
On Sun, 23 Sep 2001, Bill Stewart wrote:
At 03:10 PM 09/23/2001 -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
I think driving through my house qualifies as 'probable cause' to search his house IF there is evidence or a clear line of reasoning that it couldn't be done alone...
Well, of course. But the analogy here was comparing house keys to crypto,
Same damn thing. Your point is moot. Your comparison is thus...if I drive a car then I should have my house searched because I might(!) drive through your house. That isn't compatible with the 4th. That is what the crypto argument breaks down to. Not that I have done it or will do it. But that you can't search my house, irrespective of whether I did or didn't drive through yours; and you want to search my house. The point is to gain the opportunity for unrestrained entry to others property and activities. Explain how searching my house keeps me from still driving my car into yours? It doesn't. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Kill them all, take their land, and go there for vacation. Rage Against The Machine The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
stand to 1 DP /SECURE/ Rho op/2.c ----- Original Message ----- From: Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com> To: <cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com> Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2001 9:31 PM Subject: Re: Re: Op-ed on encryption: Privacy is no longer an argument
On Sun, 23 Sep 2001, Bill Stewart wrote:
At 03:10 PM 09/23/2001 -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
I think driving through my house qualifies as 'probable cause' to
search
his house IF there is evidence or a clear line of reasoning that it couldn't be done alone...
Well, of course. But the analogy here was comparing house keys to crypto,
Same damn thing. Your point is moot.
Your comparison is thus...if I drive a car then I should have my house searched because I might(!) drive through your house. That isn't compatible with the 4th. That is what the crypto argument breaks down to. Not that I have done it or will do it. But that you can't search my house, irrespective of whether I did or didn't drive through yours; and you want to search my house.
The point is to gain the opportunity for unrestrained entry to others property and activities.
Explain how searching my house keeps me from still driving my car into yours? It doesn't.
-- ____________________________________________________________________
Kill them all, take their land, and go there for vacation.
Rage Against The Machine
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
participants (3)
-
Bill Stewart -
COMSEC.OS -
Jim Choate