anonymous services

[der.hans]

Am 15. Sep, 2001 schwätzte Eric so:

> It's case law, and you don't have that right to do it under all
> circumstances.  Roughly, if you are planning to iminent harm to someone, a
> lawyer/psycharitrist has a duty to inform authorities.

That's "just cause" rather than "just 'cuz" :). If it's a conversation about
heart disease or how much I'm gonna leave my cat, then they've got no
business in there. Same as if that convo was with my parents or friends. If
they have just cause to think I was doing something and can get warrants,
etc., then that's something else. At that point ( and not prior ) they
should be able to get copies of encrypted docs. They still should not be
able to try to force me to give them a key ( or have a backdoor ). That's
self-incrimination. Without crypto people have to turn over books, but they
can't be forced to explain how those books show they broke the law. Having
to unencrypt docs is explaining how the books show whatever. If the gov't
can decrypt the docs ( includes by getting passphrase from a wiretap applied
*after* getting a warrant ), power to them. Those warrants have to be for
just cause not just 'cuz!

BTW, what's the diff between case law and congressional law? The supreme
court can change its mind and throw it out without it having to be
"unconstitutional"?

> > Warrantless wiretapping is a very bad thing.
> 
> I agree.

Warrantless wiretapping and lack of crypto would be able to invalidate all
other rights. It is true, however, that the other rights won't necessarily
be taken away. For instance, I doubt their ever take away rights such as:

1) being lemmings
2) being deer in headlights
3) cheap beer
4) bad sitcoms
5) worthless pop music

I think those rights are actually fairly strongly supported ;-).

ciao,

der.hans
-- 
# der.hans@LuftHans.com home.pages.de/~lufthans/ www.DevelopOnline.com
#  HERE LIES LESTER MOORE
#  SHOT 4 TIMES WITH A .44
#  NO LES
#  NO MOORE
#        -- tombstone, in Tombstone, AZ