In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Howie Goodell writes:
It's (2) that's the real problem. They have this message they
claim came from you, but the link to you is secret (maliced
keyboards; Windows 2000 backdoors, etc.) This has nothing to do
with encryption -- since the evidence is plaintext --
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
-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
http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/21810.html
Decoding the Crypto Policy Change
by Declan McCullagh ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
3:00 a.m. 17.Sep.99.PDT
Why did the Clinton administration cave
Declan McCullagh wrote:
Another answer might lie in a
little-noticed section of the legislation the
White House has sent to Congress. It
says that during civil cases or criminal
Ben Laurie writes:
Declan McCullagh wrote:
Another answer might lie in a
little-noticed section of the legislation the
White House has sent to Congress. It
says that during civil cases or criminal
Jeffrey Altman writes:
: I agree it's scary. What's the difference between that, and being
: stopped on a dark road at 2AM by a state trooper? I was, and it was
: scary, because he kept asking me if I had any guns, and he wanted to
: see what was inside the foil candy wrapper on my
On Fri, Sep 17, 1999 at 11:05:37AM -0400, Russell Nelson wrote:
What's the difference between that, and someone claiming that a
certain piece of text decrypts to a sinister message?
Seems to me like the best defense against that is mass-market crypto.
Because if the TLA claims that
On Fri, Sep 17, 1999 at 11:05:37AM -0400, Russell Nelson wrote:
What's the difference between that, and someone claiming that a
certain piece of text decrypts to a sinister message?
What's the difference between this and claiming that a certain
drop of blood has DNA characteristics that match
Our company works with the FBI a lot. We provide the software they
actually use to recover passwords.
The majority of software out there uses access-denial: the encryption /
ofuscation doesn't depend on the password. But to be acceptable in
court, you have to prove that you didn't change a
I think we should take Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hambre at his
word (from the White House briefing):
"MR. HAMRE: ... The national security establishment -- the Department
of Defense, the intelligence community -- strongly supports this
strategy. Indeed, we created the first draft of
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
15 matches
Mail list logo
