On Wed, 20 Jan 1999, Black Unicorn wrote:
> > It says "handing-over ... of the cleartext version". In other words, a
> > power to request plaintext under warrant. Not the key.
> >
> > If you accept the sense in a law to allow law enforcement to seize
> > documents with a search warrant, then you should not be able to evade
> > the spirit of that law by encrypting the document. This is the direction
> > we *should* be pushing at: plaintext under warrant without revealing the
> > key.
>
> WOAH. Are you sure you know what you are doing? You're close to imposing a
> duty to decrypt punishable by penal sanctions (read jailtime). This is
> precisely the WRONG way to go.
Does anyone know if you have a safe in your house, and the police sieze it
with a warant, whether they can demand you give them the combination?
Assume it's extremely resistant to cutting with an oxy-acetylene torch,
and it would take them weeks or months to get into it without the
combination.
Justin
