From: Lee Daniel Crocker (lee@piclab.com)
Date: Mon Oct 21 2002 - 14:12:38 MDT
> (Eugen Leitl <eugen@leitl.org>):
>
> > A camera that simply broadcasts its data to a wireless recorder--or
> > better yet, directly to a web server that posts the data while other
> > sites archive it--is immune from that problem. You can't confiscate
> > what you can't find.
>
> Yes, but you can be held in jail, until you yield the key to the encrypted
> evidence, a mild form of rubberhose cryptoanalysis. Sure, you can trigger
> an automatical release with a watchdog/dead man's switch, but what if this
> will be associated with a penalty? Contempt of court is rather rubbery.
Yes of course, but those are legal/cultural problems, not technical
ones. That's why it's so important to impress upon the public
consciousness that government agents--especially the police--do /not/
have the right to privacy, and any attempt they make to hide their
actions is /per se/ abuse of power. Juries should start routinely
refusing to accept confessions that aren't videotaped in their
entirety. Businesses should always keep a copy of their own
surveillance tapes that they don't turn over to police, and judges
and lawmakers must make it clear that private surveillance of one's
own property is a fundamental right.
I was gratified with last week's episode of "Push, Nevada"--once I
got over my initial resistance to seeing an IRS agent as the hero--
when he used the technique of grabbing a few thousand random
addresses on the internet and e-mailing them evidence because there
was no single person or entity he could trust.
-- Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:42 MST