[12760] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Gov demanding PGP key
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (rob horn)
Sat May 28 02:21:11 1994
Date: 27 May 1994 11:00:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: rob horn <horn%temerity@leia.polaroid.com>
In-Reply-To: <9405271459.AA11297@ polaroid.com>
To: com-priv@psi.com
> > I think the distinction is between physical and intellectual items.
> > Thus, you can be compelled to hand over keys - they are physical -
> > or a piece of paper showing a safe combination - it also is
> > a physical thing. However, you cannot be compelled to tell them
> > the combination - this might consitute self incrimination.
>
> I like this analysis -- I don't know if a court would buy it, but it
> appeals to me. It's intellectually very neat.
>
It will hold up better than you think. If you examine the exact words,
the 4th lists: ... persons, homes, papers, ... as items that can be seized
by warrant. The 5th provides protection against: ... giving evidence ...
There is clearly a distinction between persons giving evidence and papers
being seized. The implication is that papers will be readable.
Cryptographic protection was not then effective, and translations were
allowable as evidence.
There have been those who argued that personal papers not be used in
evidence, but their success was quite limited and did not carry into US
common law or constitutional law. (See for instance _The History of the
Fifth Amendment_).
Rob Horn horn@temerity.polaroid.com
