[45073] in Cypherpunks
Re: Is there a lawyer in the house?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brian Davis)
Sun Dec 10 01:08:31 1995
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 1995 00:59:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Brian Davis <bdavis@thepoint.net>
To: cme@acm.org
Cc: unicorn@polaris.mindport.net, cypherpunks@toad.com
In-Reply-To: <9512072127.AA28756@tis.com>
On Thu, 7 Dec 1995 cme@acm.org wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> >Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 03:39:00 -0500 (EST)
> >From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@polaris.mindport.net>
> >Subject: Re: Netscape gives in to key escrow
>
> >An individual has no legitimate expectation of privacy in the encryption
> >numbers in his GAK browser, we reasoned, because he voluntarily conveyed
> >those numbers to the government when he purchased the software.
>
> It could be even worse. I was on a panel last year with Scott Charney (sp?)
> (I believe from DoJ) during which he commented that if you give your secret
> key to anyone -- e.g., your own company -- then you have given up the
> presumption of privacy. That leaves the police open to get that secret
> without a warrant. This claim should be checked by a real lawyer.
>
I suspect that Charney was referring to the fact that the third party
keyholder could be compelled to surrender your key under subpoena without
having any right against self-incrimination invoked.
And in that, of course, he was correct. (But if you give it to your
lawyer, for example, the communication is privileged ...).
EBD
> +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> |Carl M. Ellison cme@acm.org http://www.clark.net/pub/cme |
