[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Contempt of court

Forwarded message:
From daemon Thu Jun 17 16:05:40 1993
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1993 16:05:38 -0400
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON>
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
To: mnemonic
Cc: mailer-errors
Subject: Returned mail: User unknown

   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
While talking to RoseBud.EE.UH.EDU:
>>> RCPT To:<[email protected]>
<<< 550 <[email protected]>... User unknown
550 [email protected]... User unknown

   ----- Unsent message follows -----
Received: by eff.org id AA00334
  (5.65c/IDA-1.5/ident for [email protected]); Thu, 17 Jun 1993 16:05:38 -0400 (ident-sender: [email protected])
From: Mike Godwin <mnemonic>
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Contempt of court
To: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1993 16:05:37 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "[email protected]" at Jun 17, 93 12:52:05 pm
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1440      

 
nobody writes:

> People should not be able to be forced by a subpoena duces tecum to provide
> incriminating documents.  The fifth amendment protection against self-
> incrimination normally extends to personal papers.  There are cases
> which show that corporate officers cannot avoid turning over corporate
> papers even if they incriminate themselves, but personal papers are
> provided much wider protection.
 
This is true, but it's not precisely the issue with regard to encryption
keys.

> But none of these involve giving testimony against themselves.  Producing
> a personal diary or notes which provide incriminating testimony should
> be protected by the fifth amendment.
 
Providing the key would not be seen as legally identical to providing
the unencrypted document.

> By this reasoning, someone may be able to be forced to reveal an encryption
> key, since that is not testimony.  But if the resulting documents, when
> decrypted, are personal and contain damaging, incriminating statements,
> they would not be usable in court.  To introduce them in court against
> the wishes of the defendant would be a clear violation of his fifth
> amendment rights.

Unfortunately, this has not been Fifth Amendment law for a long time.
If a search and seizure takes place at your house, and the investigating
agents find your diary, they can use it against you. If the diary is
in code, they can attempt to decode it.



--Mike