Clipper and Entrapment!

Perhaps mandatory encryption will be struck down by a court.  It seems to 
me that if the government portrays this as a "safe" method of encryption 
criminals can make the claim that they would not have committed crimes if 
they didn't feel that their encryption was secure.  Since the government 
promotes this false sense of security the government may in fact "create" 
additional crime.

I am not saying that I believe this argument.. it is, however, one that 
can be made.

        _            __  __      _ _ _        
    _  | |___ _ _   |  \/  |__ _| | (_)_ _   <*>  Jonathan Scott Mallin
   | |_| / _ \ ' \  | |\/| / _` | | | | ' \  <*>  <jmallin@umich.edu>
    \___/\___/_||_| |_|  |_\__,_|_|_|_|_||_| <*>  Email for PGP key 
-> This entire message is (C) 1994 by Jonathan Mallin.  Reproduction is <-
-> prohibited without express written consent.                          <-

Jonathan Scott Mallin wrote:

>I am not saying that I believe this argument.. it is, however, one that 
>can be made.

No, it isn't.  Entrapment isn't simply a matter of law enforcement
having something to do with a crime.  In order to use entrapment as a
defense you would have to prove that the cops went to extraordinary
measures to get you to commit a crime that you wouldn't have committed
anyway.  You'd have to prove that you had no tendency towards the type
of crime and/or that you wouldn't have had opportunity to commit it.

-- 
____
\bi/     Richard Powers
 \/     rpowers@panix.com