[52117] in Cypherpunks
Re: Why escrow? (was Re: How would Leahy bill affect crypto
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (jamesd@echeque.com)
Thu Mar 14 03:09:27 1996
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 23:41:37 -0800
To: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>, "Deranged Mutant" <WlkngOwl@UNiX.asb.com>
From: jamesd@echeque.com
Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com
At 03:27 PM 3/13/96 -0800, jim bell wrote:
> There is nothing in Leahy's bill which appears to prohibit the
> escrow agent from informing the key holder of a request/demand for the key;
On the contrary: See section 2802(c)(4)
Section 2802(c)
> "(c) REQUIREMENTS FOR RELEASE OF DECRYPTION KEY TO
> INVESTIGATIVE; OR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.-
>
> "(1) CONTENTS OF WIRE AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS.-
> A key holder is authorized to release a decryption key
> or provide decryption assistance to an investigative or
> law enforcement officer authorized by law to conduct
> electronic surveillance under chapter 119, only if-
> [...] or "(ii) a certification in writing by a person
> specified in section 2518(7) [...] stating that- "(I)
> no warrant or court order is required by law;
> [...]
> "(4) NONDISCLOSURE OF RELEASE.-No key holder, officer, employee, or
> agent thereof shall disclose the key release or provision of
> decryption assistance pursuant to subsection (b), except as may
> otherwise be required by legal process and then only after
> prior notification to the Attorney General or to the principal
> prosecuting attorney of a State or any political subdivision of
> a State, as may be appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
|
We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/
and our property, because of the kind |
of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald
derives from this right, not from the |
arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd@echeque.com
