home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky sci.crypt:4382 comp.org.eff.talk:6800
- Newsgroups: sci.crypt,comp.org.eff.talk
- Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!att-out!cbnewsh!cbnewsh.cb.att.com!wcs
- From: wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (Bill Stewart +1-908-949-0705)
- Subject: Re: Finally! We're getting somewhere.
- Organization: New Jersey Re-Education Facility for the Differently Clued
- Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 01:36:00 GMT
- Message-ID: <WCS.92Nov5203600@rainier.ATT.COM>
- Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk
- In-Reply-To: paulq@spider.co.uk's message of 4 Nov 92 19:15:31 GMT
- References: <1992Oct30.103041.304@news.uwyo.edu> <1992Nov4.191531.17572@spider.co.uk>
- Sender: news@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (NetNews Administrator)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: rainier.ho.att.com
- Lines: 45
-
- In article <1992Nov4.191531.17572@spider.co.uk> paulq@spider.co.uk (Paul Qualtrough) writes:
- >This seems to ignore constitutional issues, like forcing a person to
- >testify against himself,
- What?!?! Has the land of truth, justice and cotton fields done away with
- the standard swearing-in phrase of "...the truth, the _whole_ truth, and
- nothing but the truth" which, if agreed to, implies that you must testify
- "against yourself" if some part of the truth is incriminating?
-
- The right not to be forced to testify against yourself has been part
- of our Bill of Rights since it was first adopted, and the
- interpretations of it have been much stronger since the early-1960s
- Supreme Court rulings that prevent prosecutors from using illegally
- obtained evidence, such as confessions obtained by beating.
-
- Other parts of the Fifth Amendment have been substantially weakened,
- like the right not to have your life, liberty, or property taken
- without due process of law, but the self-incrimination part is pretty strong.
- The main workaround is to compel you to testify under a grant of immunity,
- or to have the prosecutor and judge tell the jury that since you
- wouldn't confess you must be hiding something and therefore guilty, ....
-
- The companies who supply the "net" may well be within their rights to only
- forward messages which comply to certain rules, and if the goverment dictates
- that one of those rules is that "no encrypted message shall pass without
- a registered assault key" then is there really any constitutional comeback
-
- So far, the rules for "common carriers" say that they're not liable
- for the contents of the information they carry (e.g. phone conversations),
- though that may be covered by the Drug Exception to the Bill Of Rights.
- However, assuming that they don't verify every message before
- transmitting it, which would be nearly impossible, and that they at
- most use simpleminded checking to detect encrypted traffic, no problem.
- It's easy to make encrypted messages look like unencrypted binary data,
- enough to fool a medium-quality artificial intelligence,
- and if the "suspiciousness detector" is set too high, you reject too
- many valid messages.
-
- "once a bad law is passed, it is virtually never repealed."
- That's one reason we're all arguing so rabidly with Dr. Denning,
- especially since she's been one of Us rather than one of Them.
- --
- # Pray for peace; Bill
- # Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 wcs@anchor.att.com AT&T Bell Labs 4M312 Holmdel NJ
- # Nov 12 - Anniversary of Indonesian massacre in East Timor, 1991
- # Indonesia first invaded in 1975, and about 1/3 of the people have been killed.
-