At 8:39 AM -0400 5/27/2000, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>In message <v04210109b5531fa89365@[24.218.56.92]>, "Arnold G.
>Reinhold" writes:
>
>>o There is the proposed legislation I cited earlier to protect these
>>methods from being revealed in court. These are not aimed at news
>>reports (that would never get passed the Supreme Court), but would
>>allow backdoors to be used for routine prosecutions without fear of
>>revealing their existence.
>
>That's tricky, too, since the Constitution provides the *defense* with
>a guarantee of open trials. At most, there are laws to prevent
>"greymail", where the defense threatens to reveal something sensitive.�
>In that case, the judge reviews its relevance to the case. If it is
>relevant -- and a back door used to gather evidence certainly would be
>-- the prosecution can either agree to have it revelated or drop the
>case.
>
>I'm not saying there aren't back doors that wouldn't fall into this
>category; I am saying that such a law would have to be very narrowly
>crafted to pass constitutional muster.
>
> --Steve Bellovin
My point in mentioning this legislation was not to suggest it was
likely to become law or withstand constitutional scrutiny. I am
saying that the mere fact that the administration proposed this
legislation demonstrates that they expect a large number of cases
which will rely on evidence decrypted using means that they do not
wish to come to light.
Arnold Reinhold
