From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Jan 21 11:01:26 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA12800 for freebsd-chat-outgoing; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 11:01:26 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from smtp04.primenet.com (smtp04.primenet.com [206.165.6.134]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA12795 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 11:01:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tlambert@usr06.primenet.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp04.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA22586; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 12:01:14 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr06.primenet.com(206.165.6.206) via SMTP by smtp04.primenet.com, id smtpd022532; Thu Jan 21 12:01:11 1999 Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr06.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA22124; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 12:00:58 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199901211900.MAA22124@usr06.primenet.com> Subject: Re: Change in crypto policy in France To: andrsn@andrsn.stanford.edu Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 19:00:58 +0000 (GMT) Cc: brett@lariat.org, jon@caamora.com.au, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: from "Annelise Anderson" at Jan 20, 99 03:37:21 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Three points to add to this little chat... (1) The US is not bound by any treaties until they are ratified by congress; many treaties are signed, but never ratified (e.g. "the moon treaty" outlawing deployment of orbital nuclear weapons, weapons platforms, and EMP devices). (2) No one willing to blow up the world trade center would ever risk the penalties for exporting cryptography; neither would foreign powers hostile to US interests (yeah, right). (3) Technically, use of evidence obtained via wiretapping may be a violation of the 5th ammendment to the US constitution, which acknowledges the right to avoid self incrimination. In combination with the Miranda ruling, this means that any surreptiously obtained evidence can not be used for criminal prosecution. Test cases which would determine the legality of wiretapping evidence at the apellate level have a habit of being dropped before they can become binding case law. On the other hand, privacy is not explicitly guaranteed, only the ability to be secure in your person and property without due process (color me a constitutional constructionist, but Hoover and Ness tended to overstep a lot of bounds as a means to an end). Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message