[960] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
RE: encryption by the wind in an open field
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Black Unicorn)
Fri Jun 6 17:24:13 1997
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 16:43:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
To: Blanc Weber <blancw@MICROSOFT.com>
cc: cryptography@c2.net
In-Reply-To: <88CE23A0B727D0118BB000805FD4752401B3C0CF@RED-81-MSG.dns.microsoft.com>
On Fri, 6 Jun 1997, Blanc Weber wrote:
>
> Is the act of hiding incriminating information in a message _after_ it
> has been expressed, sufficiently related to hiding the incriminating
> information in a message _before_ it has been expressed, such that it
> would warrant policing the hidden meanings in thoughts?
This reminds me of "insider non trading."
This is where I was planning to buy exxon, but then my pal (an exxon vp)
tells me that the company is about to announce a major loss. This is
arguably a violation of SEC regulations, but it just seems
counter-intutive. When can non-action result in criminal
liability?
> Could an individual be guilty of hiding from general observation the
> meaningful data which would communicate a future criminal intent or a
> past criminal action?
In terms of a contempt of court charge, only if the court asked for it.
In terms of an obstruction or destruction of material evidence charge?
That's a really loaded question.
I'm going to pull run-of-the-mill obstruction and destruction of
material evidence statutes and take a peek. Unless Mr. Metzger objects,
I'll post my results here.
> ..
> Blanc
--
Forward complaints to : European Association of Envelope Manufactures
Finger for Public Key Gutenbergstrasse 21;Postfach;CH-3001;Bern
Vote Monarchist Switzerland
Rebel Directive #7:Avoid soccer games when a government assault threatens.
