In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Adam Shostack write
s:
| I suspect his security experts realized that export controls were
| ineffective in keeping crypto out of the hands of bad guys and that
| the DOD was suffering because the commercial products on which it
| depends lack strong
On Fri, 17 Sep 1999, Greg Broiles wrote:
What scares me is the possibility that there won't even be an argument
about whether or not a particular clump of ciphertext decodes to a
particular bit of plaintext because I don't think it'll be possible to
cross-examine prosecution witnesses
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of P.J. Ponder
Sent: Friday, September 17, 1999 16:22
To: Greg Broiles
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why did White House change its mind on crypto?
Would the courts allow the prosecution to admit
Your argument is straight to the point. Since you are unfamiliar with the
operations of the current FISA court, you obviously can't be blamed for not
being aware of the fact that there is an US court in operation today that
conducts its proceedings quite differently from the way proceedings
bram [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't believe the courts will allow the government to present
evidence without giving the defense a chance to contest the means used
to obtain it.
The same could be said about the movie rating system, child pornography,
and crypto export laws. Just
Hi --
It seems to me this breaks into two parts:
1. The LEA got your encryption key.
2. They got plaintext some other way.
If it's (1), they can offer to prove their case by decrypting
the seized cyphertext which they somehow tie to the defendant.
Of course, he can opt to keep his key
