Forced disclosures, document seizures, Right and Wrong.

Black Unicorn unicorn at schloss.li
Tue Jul 31 11:53:46 PDT 2001



----- Original Message -----
From: "Trei, Peter" <ptrei at rsasecurity.com>
To: "'Black Unicorn'" <unicorn at schloss.li>
Cc: <cypherpunks at cyberpass.net>
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 7:53 AM
Subject: RE: Forced disclosures, document seizures, Right and Wrong.


> Thanks for your response. The 'in his direct or indirect
> control' bit is the part that got lost in the article.

Sure.

News articles are the WORST source for legal analysis.

> I hope it was clear that I was not looking for ways to
> deny a court *access* to a piece of information, but
> rather using the net (prior to a subpoena) as an way
> to make  *sequestration* of a piece of info impossible,
> by placing copies permanently outside 'his direct or
> indirect control'.

It was clear.  I wanted to make sure to correct the common misconception among
cypherpunks that you can just thumb your nose at a court with impunity.  I
didn't believe that you were exhibiting this behavior, but failing to clear
things up often leads to misconceptions by others, who then cite the
erroniously intrepreted stuff to support their silly ideas about legal-immune
key escrow and etc.

> I hope you read Mike's 'Oh pointy one' note carefully;
> it points out one of the great problems most of us IANAL
> have with IAAL types - the confusion of laws and court
> action with right and justice, and actions which are
> simply unlawful at a given time and place with wrong
> and injustice.

It's a base conflict.  A legal education is the ultimate dose of practical
cynicism.  It quickly becomes apparent not that the law isn't perfect, but
that it is often pretty damn screwed up.  American jurisprudence is about
_fairness of process_, not justice, or right, or wrong.  The frustration that
IAAL types usually have is that IANAL types tend to cross the line from
criticzing the law to giving legal advice which is more derrived from their
dislike for the state of the law than a recognition of what it really is.

> Laws and courts are or should be an attempt to map
> the behaviour of governments to right and justice, but
> lawyers so often seemed to have been conditioned
> into thinking they are one and the same, rather than
> a (very) rough approximation.

Well, again, the legal education process is designed around navigating through
the system, not mapping the behavior of governments.

> [Case to point: Canter and Siegel claiming that there
> was nothing wrong with them sending their Green Card
> spam, since there was no law against it.]
>
> It's possible - indeed essential - for people to argue
> over right and wrong, justice and injustice without
> regard for what a given legal and court system says;
> even a court and legal system which can send Men
> With Guns after them.

Oh, I wholly agree.  And I believe this is a fully valid function for
cypherpunks.  Unfortunately, it often shifts into "you should design this
technical solution" - typically a technical solution which will end the
operated in jail.

To me the important distinction is to recognize what we want the ideal to be,
but avoid running afoul of the law in the process.

> Laws do not define Right and Wrong.
> Courts and Legal Systems do not define Justice.
>
> They are better than nothing at all, but we should
> never imbue them with divine wisdom. That way
> lies Tyranny.

Agreed.

> Peter Trei
>





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list