[76391] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: It's a Presidential Mandate, Feds use it. How come you are
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steve Schear)
Tue Jan 16 18:33:37 2007
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 13:17:44 -0800
To: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@cs.columbia.edu>
From: Steve Schear <s.schear@comcast.net>
Cc: cryptography@metzdowd.com
In-Reply-To: <20070116160815.54EF676603F@berkshire.machshav.com>
At 08:08 AM 1/16/2007, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 07:56:22 -0800
>Steve Schear <s.schear@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > At 06:32 AM 1/16/2007, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>Legal access is a special case -- what is the law (and practice) in any
>given country on forced access to keys? If memory serves, Mike Godwin
>-- a lawyer who strongly supports crypto, etc. -- has opined that under
>US law, a subpoena for keys would probably be upheld by the courts. I
>believe that British law explicitly mandates key disclosure. And of
>course, there's always rubber hose cryptanalysis in jurisdictions where
>that's acceptable.
That assumes the police or other agencies know who operated the server. In
practice, some TOR servers are rented by hosting sites to parties they
don't know or think they know but really don't.
Steve
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@metzdowd.com
