Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 13:30:56 -0400 (EDT) From: "Christopher R. Bowman" <crb@Glue.umd.edu> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: dkelly@hiwaay.net, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: C2 Trusted FreeBSD? Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.95q.971014130142.2752A-100000@stochastic.eng.umd.edu> In-Reply-To: <199710141240.FAA01458@usr02.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 14 Oct 1997, Terry Lambert wrote: > > Remember, for the most part we're talking about security specs brought to > > you by the same government that would limit cryptography to key escrow > > techniques. > > The FBI web page has a link explaining their position: legally obtained > wire taps. Yes but this is the wrong analogy, the FBI claims that because they would have had an undisputed right to wire tap under current law, we individuals should take actions to insure that they can do something (namely break a code) they otherwise would be unable to physically do A closer analogy would be as follows: we citizens should keep a recording of all conversations we make in public since the FBI would have a right to have audio tape recoders for every square inch of the USA but they physically can't do, even thought we would have no expectation of privacy for conversation held out doors on a private street.` > I can't help thinking that, even though this doesn't violate search > and seizure (since wire taps a re performed with due process of law, > needing a court order), it probably violates compelling one to > testify against oneself. The proper question isn't weather we have due process, at it's base due process only means you get notice, a hearing and treated like everyone else, meaning that it's ok to screw poeple as long as we let you argue your side, and we screw everybody. The real problem is that it violates article four of the bill of rights. To force everyone to leave their front door open because a few people might be storing contraband is unreasonable and thus these actions violate our 4 amendment rights. Sadly our Supreme Court hasn't quite seen it this way (see for example court decisions up holding sobriety check points) and we the people have refused to help them see the light. > Unless you can get wire taps thrown out altogether, then strong > cryptography is potentiatially an act of obstruction of justice, > and the FBI has a point of law in their favor. If the keys to your transmissions are stored only in your head (or better yet discarded after the transmission) it is not obstruction of justice, on the one hand you can't be compelled to disclose any information you don't have, and on the other you can't be compelled to give any information that might incriminate you (unless you decide to testify or are granted imunity for any crime that you may divulge information about) It is only an obstruction of justice if the information you are forced to disclose is not incriminating or leads to incriminating information. > Personally, I think all wire taps should be illegal on the basis > of them being an act of compelling someone to testify against > themselves. But until someone tests this (probably a real criminal, > unfortunately) and gets the evidence thrown out as unconstitutionally > obtained, then existing case law favors Key Escrow. > > > Terry Lambert > terry@lambert.org > --- > Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present > or previous employers. > --------- Christopher R. Bowman crb@Glue.umd.edu <A HREF="http://www.glue.umd.edu/~crb">My home page</A>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.SOL.3.95q.971014130142.2752A-100000>