Re: Is there a lawyer in the house?

[Brian Davis <bdavis@thepoint.net>]

On Sun, 10 Dec 1995, Black Unicorn wrote:

> On Sun, 10 Dec 1995, Brian Davis wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 8 Dec 1995, Black Unicorn wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, 7 Dec 1995, Jeff Weinstein wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Black Unicorn wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Thu, 7 Dec 1995, sameer wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > >   How about if Bob had a contractual agreement with Alice to keep his
> > > > key secret?
> > > 
> > > Then as a defense attorney, I would argue that Bob had an obvious 
> > > expectation of privacy with Alice, and that the fact that he relayed this 
> > > key to Alice only under those circumstances represents a definite 
> > > expression of his intent to keep the key private, thus triggering 4th 
> > > amendment protections.  My view is that this would be a very strong
> > > argument.
> > 
> > Bob's Fourth Amendment rights are not triggered by his contract with 
> > Alice.  Alice can be compelled to give up the key (by testimony or 
> > production) and giving up that key does not tend to incriminate *Alice* 
> > in a violation of law.  Alice can't invoke Bob's rights against 
> > self-incrimination for obvious reasons:  Alice isn't Bob.
> > ^^^^
> 
> You've taken the narrow answer I was trying to give out of context.
> As for fifth amendment questions, That's another discussion entirely.  If 
> this was not an error, then you have still taken the question way beyond the
> narrow scope I was addressing.

You are correct:  I didn't realize/remember/whatever that you were 
limiting the remarks to the narrow scope you set forth below.
And on the point you were addressing, I agree with you.

Sorry to have added the fog ...

EBD

 
> I was answering only as to how the manifestation of Bob's privacy
> interest might impact the argument that the key was no longer a protected 
> interest acording to the Smith v. Maryland ruling, and thus unprotected 
> by the fourth amendment on those grounds.  (Assuming it would even be
> applied to the Bob - Alice relationship in terms of crypto keys).
> 
> Your statement "Bob's Fourth Amendment rights are not triggered by his 
> contract with Alice."  Is probably correct in the event the key is 
> obtained from Alice.  It may not be if the key is obtained by electronic 
> measures or otherwise without a warrant and then the argument is made 
> after the fact that Bob has exerted no expectation of privacy over the 
> key.  This is the key question which bears on the key escrow's 
> effect on Bob's protection (Alice in that example being the escrow 
> agent).  Clearly Alice in that circumstance is unlikely to give up the 
> key without a warrant.  The real worry is that the authorities are given 
> free reign to obtain the key by other methods from Bob, or Bob's 
> communications without a warrant by the mere fact that Bob has "tendered" 
> the information to Alice (the escrow agent).
> 
> Again, I'm addressing the narrow issue of voluntary surrendering of key 
> information to an escrow agent and it's effect on the 'third party' 
> rule in Smith v. Maryland, not the eventual outcome of an exclusionary 
> hearing.
> 
> > EBD 
> > 
> > Not a lawyer on the Net, although I play one in real life.
> > **********************************************************
> > Flame away! I get treated worse in person every day!!
> 
> ---
> My prefered and soon to be permanent e-mail address: unicorn@schloss.li
> "In fact, had Bancroft not existed,       potestas scientiae in usu est
> Franklin might have had to invent him."    in nihilum nil posse reverti
> 00B9289C28DC0E55  E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information
> 
> 

Not a lawyer on the Net, although I play one in real life.
**********************************************************
Flame away! I get treated worse in person every day!!