DOJ jails reporter, Ashcroft allows more journalist subpoenas

[georgemw at speakeasy.net]

On 30 Jul 2001, at 14:38, Black Unicorn wrote:


> Prosecutor:  You retained copies of this document?
> Witness: Yes.
> Prosecutor:  You were aware that all copies and original were subpoened by the
> court?
> Witness: Yes.
> Prosecutor:  Where are these documents located?
> [Witness:  I placed blocks of data on a safe site so they would be
> accessible.]
> [Witness:  I split a cryptographic key and spread it among my friends and
> encrypted the document to it.]
> [Witness:  I (insert clever but legally naive cypherpunk solution here) the
> document.]
> 
> (Oops)
> 

Forgive me for being naive wrt the law,  but as I interpret what you
have written,  the critical distinction is,  if you refuse to comply
with a judge's orders (for whatever reason) you'll get cited for
contempt,  but if you cannot comply with his orders you're ok.
Correct me if I'm misinterpreting you.

So it seems to me that if you, say, publish documents to freenet 
(encypted or not) then you're ok;  it's right there in the spec,  
docments cannot be removed,  even by the original author.  If your
life depends on removing the document,  then you die.
How is this wrong?

If it's a crime to take actions specifically for the purpose of later
rendering you unable to comply with a judge's order (is it?),
how is escrowing it on the isle of man any different?

Thanks,
George