Re: GAK and self-incrimination?

[Greg Broiles <gbroiles@darkwing.uoregon.edu>]

Tim May writes:

>Consider this hypo: I send an encrypted message to a partner in crime
>containing plans for future crimes and descriptions of past crimes. I don't
>GAK the message. The government prosecutes me under the Anti-Terrorism and
>Child Protection Act of 1997.
>
>My defense? That GAKKing the message would be tantamount to incriminating
>myself, which the Fifth Amendment protects me against.      

The Fifth protects you against *compelled* self-incrimination - in
particular, the right to be free from the "cruel trilemma" of

        o       conviction of a substantive crime, based on your
                (true) testimony
        o       conviction of perjury, for lying when asked to incriminate
                yourself
        o       contempt of court sanctions, for refusing to answer

but your hypo doesn't seem to create that forbidden situation. In
particular, you're free to simply not send the message at all. 

(this message, sent from my Windows box, isn't PGP signed. Doh. signatures
will return when the Unix box is net-functional again.)
--
"The anchored mind screwed into me by the psycho-    Greg Broiles
lubricious thrust of heaven is the one that thinks   
every temptation, every desire, every inhibition."   greg@goldenbear.com
	-- Antonin Artaud		   gbroiles@darkwing.uoregon.edu