[5666] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Why did White House change its mind on crypto?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (P.J. Ponder)
Fri Sep 17 19:58:43 1999
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 19:22:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: "P.J. Ponder" <ponder@freenet.tlh.fl.us>
Reply-To: "P.J. Ponder" <ponder@freenet.tlh.fl.us>
To: Greg Broiles <gbroiles@netbox.com>
Cc: cryptography@c2.net
In-Reply-To: <19990917103736.A1972@ideath.parrhesia.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.96.990917190829.17877B-100000@fn3.freenet.tlh.fl.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Fri, 17 Sep 1999, Greg Broiles wrote:
<. . . .>
>
> What scares me is the possibility that there won't even be an argument
> about whether or not a particular clump of ciphertext decodes to a
> particular bit of plaintext because I don't think it'll be possible to
> cross-examine prosecution witnesses about the way that they came into
> possession of what's purported to be plaintext. They won't need to say
> how they came into possession of the plaintext, because that would
> reveal their methods <. . . .>
Would the courts allow the prosecution to admit evidence without
recognizing the right of cross examination of witnesses or examination of
evidence and its provenance? I helped defend a case in law school (as a
clerk; I couldn't practice yet) that involved a wiretap, and the FBI and
US Attorney's Office had to give us copies of the tapes, and the phone
records, and everything. That was twenty years ago, but I don't think
things have changed that much. Then again, I have never been involved
with a case where secret government information gathering was an issue
bearing on a significant piece of evidence. I'd be interested to hear
from anyone that has seen how courts would react in similar situations -
where the prosecution attempts to introduce evidence but 'can't say' where
it came from or how they happened to have it....
