From: uri@watson.ibm.com (Uri Blumenthal,35-016,8621267,)
Subject: Re: the Right of Privacy
Originator: uri@aixproj.watson.ibm.com
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 00:59:11 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

From article <1992Nov15.065352.2764@cactus.org>, by ritter@cactus.org (Terry Ritter):
> 
>>2. Yes, there is a difference between the "things" and "information".
> 
>  Any such distinction is illusory; there is no information without
>  a "thing" to hold it.  

How about a brain for a "thing" to hold it?   A thought, which
hasn't even materialized into words? A smell? A ... <this list
could go on for a long time>

> The point of this is that while The
>  Constitution does prevent a court from demanding the information
>  stored by the things in your mind, it also recognizes the "right"
>  of the government to anything *not* in your mind.

OK, then you can have my diary encrypted by an odd system
invented by me and based on super-mnemo-DES.   The method
itself and the keys are stored in my head. Help yourself.

>  Some posters believe that this may apply to cryptography *now*.
>  That is, it may be within the power of a court to order a defendant
>  to deliver *plaintext* for seized ciphertext.  

A. No way.
B. There is no precedent to this, though there were several
   cases, where encrypted materials were involved.   In one
   of them gov't got a good cryptanalist (Mrs. Friedman :-),
   who managed to break the code - but apparently it wasn't
   in court's power to order the plaintexts fom the 
   defendants.

> Of course, the
>  "only" penalty that I can see for opposing such an order would be
>  contempt of court.  As this is unlikely to be very productive, a
>  future government might want to make the penalty considerably more
>  interesting, or eliminate any current ambiguity in the "right" to
>  make such a demand.

Of course, I wouldn't bet my life on that - if the gov't is going
to take all this bull***t seriously, it will make sure the 
penalties are stiff enough to deter those who normally
obeys the laws (except speed limits, maybe :-), from
violating this stupid one...

>  But future legislation could restrict the right to use
>  cryptography to those who are willing to accept the possible audit
>  of their ciphered information under due process.

I think, that [according to the aforementioned :-] what you say,
contradicts the Constitution.

>  I guess the thing I find most irritating about this post is the
>  attitude that somehow *you* get to decide what rules you will obey,
>  or what you will *allow* government to do.  This seems strangely
>  unlike the "rule of law" under which I must operate.

Huh? What is this all about?!

>  I'm really too old to be impressed by a swaggering attitude about
>  what you will or will not permit government to do.  If such a law
>  passes, you will comply or go to jail.  You can have a good swagger
>  there.

That's correct. And I remember there were [are?] states, in which
it was [is?] a law to report to the Secret Police immediately 
anybody speaking bad about the gov't... And of course lots
of people did go to jail (or rather, to concentration
camp)... So what I find most irritating about all
this is how too many of Americans are too
err, anti-smart to do thei best to make
such a system possible here... Or do
they really need a sharp boot toe
in the right spot to get wise?

>  Apparently, we must first teach the rule of law and the concept
>  that legislation can prevent one from doing things which one
>  wants to do.  It sounds a little like teaching maturity.

"Doctor, cure yourself first!"
-- 
Regards,
Uri.		uri@watson.ibm.com
------------
<Disclaimer>
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.folklore.urban,alt.politics.usa.constitution