From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Jan 26 12:57:59 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA29096 for freebsd-chat-outgoing; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 12:57:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from haldjas.folklore.ee (Haldjas.folklore.ee [193.40.6.121]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA29085 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 12:57:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee) Received: from haldjas.folklore.ee (haldjas.folklore.ee [172.17.2.1] (may be forged)) by haldjas.folklore.ee (8.8.8/8.8.4) with SMTP id WAA19169; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 22:56:34 +0200 (EET) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 22:56:34 +0200 (EET) From: Narvi To: Terry Lambert cc: andrsn@andrsn.stanford.edu, brett@lariat.org, jon@caamora.com.au, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Change in crypto policy in France In-Reply-To: <199901211900.MAA22124@usr06.primenet.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Terry Lambert wrote: > 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). > You mean there are places with parliament that this is not true? > (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). > No foreign nation or governemt would have the resources to develop secure crypto. Take for example IDEA... 8-) > (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. > Sander There is no love, no good, no happiness and no future - all these are just illusions. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message