CLIP: Legal Aspects

Clinton Clipper Legal Stuff:
 
  With regard to the fear that the issuance of your 'Klinton Key'
will allow your favorite TLA to decrypt all conversations taped
previous to the issuance of the warrant granting the key, there
is precedence that disallows it.  In US v. Plamondon 407 US 297,
the Supreme Ct. held that *prior* judicial approval is a must for
any evidence sought to be admitted.  Therefore, while the
precedence does not prevent them from actually decyphering your
previous conversations, there is support that states it can not
be used against you.
 
In US v. Donovan (sorry lost the cite), the court held that the
actual application must Identify *all* parties to be surveilled.
Thus, the CIA cannot simply run a tape on you and expect to use
it in court.  It is important that everyone understand that none
of these cases *prevent* any agency from *doing* the
surveillance, and that probable cause is still an easy standard
to meet in order to get the warrant.  These cases merely tell you
what would be admissable against anyone in court (i.e. this does
not affect TLA (three letter acronyms) from blackmailing you or
scaring the hell out of you.
 
There is an enormous body of law out there on this topic and
could use some guidance from the Cypherpunk elders for search
topics.  What's needed out there.  Email me privately.
 
TOTALLY aside from the Clipper topic:  Just got the new WIRED.
Excellent article.  Groovy pix.  Which one is Murdering Thug? 8^)
 
mjmiski@macc.wisc.edu                    CyberLaw, etc.
Matt

>  With regard to the fear that the issuance of your 'Klinton Key'
>will allow your favorite TLA to decrypt all conversations taped
>previous to the issuance of the warrant granting the key, there
>is precedence that disallows it.  
	[citations deleted]

It is true that evidence from an illegal wiretap cannot be used as
evidence in court; this is called the Exclusionary Rule.  While the ER
has been weakened in the last decade, it still basically holds.
Unfortunately, that is not where the main threat lies.

Exploratory wiretaps, illegally made and whose evidence is not
directly admissible, provide information that may lead investigators
to other information.  This secondary information _is_ admissible.

It would be a wonderful if the ER were strengthened so that all
evidence which resulted from an illegal search _and all of its
subsidiaries_ were conidered tainted.  That battle, however, is a much
longer one to fight.

Even in that situation, though, the defense would have to prove that
an unauthorized wiretap took place.

Eric