public servant privacy

In response and affirmation of Eric Fogleman's note on Communications Policy,
I have to concur. ALL documents produced by a public official operating an
email system on public time and in pursuit of public policy (e.g. a White
House official) should be subject to scrutiny and should not be considered as
that person's private property. If such a person wants to have private
communications with other private citizens, they should do it on their OWN
time and with their OWN money. HOWEVER, if such persons then turn around and
abuse this freedom by abusing the public trust in those contexts (i.e. if
Ollie North started communicating with NSA officials through CompuServe to
order illegal shipments of money to CIA agents in Peruvian cocaine cartels),
they should, by virtue of their positions of public trust be subject to the
same (presumably high) levels of scrutiny as they are now - Congressional,
OMB, GSA, FBI investigations, etc.

>>The burden should not be on individuals to constantly be open to scrutiny
to
>>demonstrate their innocence, but on those with the power to suspend
individual
>>rights.

Yes, private citizens should not be subject to the same sorts of
investigations unless there is direct evidence of criminal intent or activity
in which case there should be a search warrant and notification of intent to
search.

Tim May notes (appropriately) that:
>>Strong crypto means even Ollie North can fully protect his records.

Yes, but shouldn't he be _required_ to "open" his files if he is under
criminal investigation just like a drug-dealer who's required to open the
locked trunk of his car?

I'm sure my opinion is open to development, but this is my gut-level
response.

  dave

deltorto@aol.com writes:

> 
> Yes, private citizens should not be subject to the same sorts of
> investigations unless there is direct evidence of criminal intent or activity
> in which case there should be a search warrant and notification of intent to
> search.
> 
> Tim May notes (appropriately) that:
> >>Strong crypto means even Ollie North can fully protect his records.
> 
> Yes, but shouldn't he be _required_ to "open" his files if he is under
> criminal investigation just like a drug-dealer who's required to open the
> locked trunk of his car?

Well, there are really two conflicting issues here:

1) The Fifth Amendment - the right not to testify against yourself,
   hence the Miranda warning when you're arrested. You can claim that
   being forced to decrypt your hard disk by the cops violates your
   Fifth Amendment rights, and refuse to decrypt it.

2) Obstruction of Justice - by not handing over the key to your hard disk,
   you may be obstructing an investigation.  By not decrypting your
   hard disk under court order, you maybe be held in contempt of court.


Number 2 may work for law enforcement if they are investigation a third
party and ask to see your hard disk in order to help their investigation.
A good example is an Internet site that is being used as a telnet launch-pad
by some hacker. If that site refuses to cooperate and keeps their files
encrypted, the police/court may charge you with obstruction of justice or
contempt of court.  HOWEVER, if you feel that by decrypting these files,
you would be providing testimony/evidence against yourself, you can plead
the 5th, and tell them to go screw themselves.


Thug

On Thu, 21 Jan 1993, Murdering Thug wrote:

> deltorto@aol.com writes:
> > 
> > Tim May notes (appropriately) that:
> > >>
> > >>Strong crypto means even Ollie North can fully protect his records.

[Jeez, I feel like taking this to alt.cascade...]

> > 
> > Yes, but shouldn't he be _required_ to "open" his files if he is under
> > criminal investigation just like a drug-dealer who's required to open the
> > locked trunk of his car?
> 
> Well, there are really two conflicting issues here:
> 
> 1) The Fifth Amendment - [legal summary elided]
> 
> 2) Obstruction of Justice - [again]
. . . 
> 
> Number 2 may work for law enforcement if they are investigation a third
> party and ask to see your hard disk in order to help their investigation.
> A good example is an Internet site that is being used as a telnet launch-pad
> by some hacker. If that site refuses to cooperate and keeps their files
> encrypted, the police/court may charge you with obstruction of justice or
> contempt of court.  HOWEVER, if you feel that by decrypting these files,
> you would be providing testimony/evidence against yourself, you can plead
> the 5th, and tell them to go screw themselves.

I believe the only way for the autorities to get around that is to grant
you immunity for whatever you reveal (if giving crypto keys is held to be
more like giving testimony against one's self than like opening a car
trunk).  They did it for Ollie North, and he used that to get a later
conviction thrown out.  

To bring this back to crypto, the ability of authorities to compel
testimony from people by granting them immunity is a _great_ argument for
remailers not even keeping records.

Joe