[5672] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Why did White House change its mind on crypto?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bram)
Sat Sep 18 20:08:04 1999
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 13:49:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: bram <bram@gawth.com>
To: Marc Horowitz <marc@MIT.EDU>
Cc: cryptography@c2.net
In-Reply-To: <t53zoylnd3d.fsf@horowitz.ne.mediaone.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9909181343320.26962-100000@ultra.gawth.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On 17 Sep 1999, Marc Horowitz wrote:
> IANAL, but the 6th amendment seems to prohibit this pretty clearly:
>
> [snip]
>
> 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.
The same could be said about the movie rating system, child pornography,
and crypto export laws. Just because something is clearly unconstitutional
doesn't mean courts won't go along with it.
> It's scary that the White House would try to pass such legislation,
> but I don't fear it being enforced.
"I can't say that because it would violate national security" was an
oft-repeated refrain in the Iran-Contra affair. Like it or not, the
'national security' excuse has quite a bit of history to it and it's very
naive to think it will just go away.
-Bram
