Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 14 Oct 1997 12:40:04 +0000 (GMT)
From:      Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>
To:        dkelly@hiwaay.net
Cc:        freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: C2 Trusted FreeBSD?
Message-ID:  <199710141240.FAA01458@usr02.primenet.com>
In-Reply-To: <199710140424.XAA17794@nospam.hiwaay.net> from "dkelly@hiwaay.net" at Oct 13, 97 11:24:27 pm

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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.

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.

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.

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.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199710141240.FAA01458>