right to speak language of choice (Re: DTI Policy Response)

[Adam Back]

Ken Brown <brownrk1@texaco.com> writes:
> I don't see that section 14 of the Statement implies a compulsory
> infrastructure-based key-recovery GAK. In fact it rules it out for
> private users and unlicensed providers. To my non-lawyerly mind it
> says: "if you have an encrypted message that we think is evidence,
> and you don't tell us what it says when we ask you, then we will put
> you in prison". Which may be bad news but surely is no different
> from the current law about witholding evidence?

But you still have the right to remain silent.  I think it is more
akin to the following scenario:

Alice says to Bob in email: 

: Are you free for a meeting on 30th with Mickey Mouse?

Now this could be a normal communication, where Mikey Mouse is their
nick name for a friend or it could be coded -- perhaps Alice and Bob
have met before and agreed that this message will mean that Bob is to
carry out an IRA hit on the given date.  This knowledge they agreed is
their cryptographic `key'.

If Alice or Bob are requested to hand over the key and they say `no
comment' they can not be locked up soley for refusing to reveal this
key.

Cryptography is just a more formalised method of encrypting
information.  Why should people be required to speak in terms that
government can follow?  Surely people are allowed to talk in slang,
foreign languages, and make use of in-joke references (Mickey Mouse
could be a reference only understood with context of either parties
shared experience, they would both understand the referred person.)

If people talk in such a way that their conversation can not be easily
understood with out this contextual information, the government does
not have any legal basis to demand they re-count the context and
shared experiences the in jokes are based upon.

Adam
-- 
print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>
)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`