[5668] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Why did White House change its mind on crypto?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Marc Horowitz)
Sat Sep 18 14:50:10 1999
From: Marc Horowitz <marc@MIT.EDU>
To: Ben Laurie <ben@algroup.co.uk>
Cc: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>, cryptography@c2.net
Date: 17 Sep 1999 22:54:46 -0400
In-Reply-To: Ben Laurie's message of "Fri, 17 Sep 1999 15:19:34 +0100"
Message-ID: <t53zoylnd3d.fsf@horowitz.ne.mediaone.net>
Ben Laurie <ben@algroup.co.uk> writes:
>> Declan McCullagh wrote:
>> > Another answer might lie in a
>> > little-noticed section of the legislation the
>> > White House has sent to Congress. It
>> > says that during civil cases or criminal
>> > prosecutions, the Feds can use
>> > decrypted evidence in court without
>> > revealing how they descrambled it.
>>
>> If you can not reveal how you descramble it, doesn't that mean you can't
>> be asked to show that it actually corresponds to the ciphertext?
IANAL, but the 6th amendment seems to prohibit this pretty clearly:
6th Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right
to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state
and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which
district shall have been previously ascertained by law; and to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be
^^^^^
confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the
assistance of counsel for his defense.
I don't believe the courts will allow the government to present
evidence without giving the defense a chance to contest the means used
to obtain it.
It's scary that the White House would try to pass such legislation,
but I don't fear it being enforced.
Marc
