Re: cr> Leahy bill nightmare scenario?


Sender: David Cloutman <•••@••.•••>

On Mon, 11 Mar 1996, Cyber Rights wrote:

> From: jim bell <•••@••.•••>
> In case any of you people still think that Leahy bill ostensibly freeing up
> encryption is "progress," the following scenario is provided for your
> consideration:
> "Bob" runs an encrypted remailer.  His system forwards mail whose contents
> he cannot read, even if he wanted to.  He cannot know from where the
> messages originated, or where they ended up.  He likes it this way, because
> nobody can accuse him of complicity with a (encrypted) message that he can't
> read.

(Bob receives and responds to a message saying his remailer is being used
for illegal activities.)

>  What "Bob" doesn't realize is that the message came from an agent for the
> cops, who now have proof that he is aware that his system will be regularly
> used for illegal purposes.  If "Bob" is smart enough, he will realize his
> quandary, and he has only two choices:

Admittedly, I am no lawyer, but this sounds like entrapment to me, since
the police are the ones sending the dirty pictures. Wouldn't they need to
prove that other illegal activity was happening on the machine? If not
then this scenario is frightening; not only because of the potential
effects of this law, but also because of the existence of a system that
would allow such obvious abuses of power to potentially exist in its law
enforcement agencies.
    |"...the peculiar evil of silencing the expression|                    |
    | of opinion is that it is robbing the human      |   David Cloutman   |
    | race..." -John Stuart Mill; _On_Liberty_        |   •••@••.••• |
    |Personal:|                    |
    |Ask the Philostopher:|   Fight the CDA!   |

 Posted by Andrew Oram  - •••@••.••• - Moderator: CYBER-RIGHTS (CPSR)
   CyberJournal:  (WWW or FTP) -->
 Materials may be reposted in their _entirety_ for non-commercial use.