Slashdot Mirror
Dear Mr. Straw
Stand.org.uk has taken issue with the UK's proposed new e-commerce bill in a novel fashion. The Bill includes an assortment of new powers for law enforcement to combat the spread of that dread menace, cryptography. Police can demand that you decrypt and provide the keys for any encrypted communications in your possession - with a penalty of two years in jail. But what if you don't have the key? An excellent letter and even more excellent photo-essay. -- michael
Encrypt a file of keys that you use, but you don't record which key goes to which file. That way you dont really have the key. But if you wanted to get back into a file encrypted with one of the keys, do a dictionary attack using the keys from that file. It shouldn't take too long.
10. O.J. Simpson
9. Ted Kennedy
8. Patrick Naughton
7. Kevin Mitnick
6. JonBenet's daddy
5. Whoever shot JR
4. Eric Clapton ("I shot the sherriff...")
3. But he didn't shoot the deputy...
2. Dr. Richard Kimble
1. Hemos and CmdrTaco (*they* killed Kenny!)
Hmmm... all that, and I didn't even *mention* Bill Gates!
The fundamentals of this law are good. Actually, this is probably the only acceptable middle ground about encryption. You can use whatever encryption you want as long you can provide the clear text to law enforcement official, given they have the proper warrant for that. There is the important point. No eavesdropping, no sweeping monitoring for pseudo national security enforcement. After all, police cannot search your homeplace just like that, but they can do it with a warrant, issued by a judge, isn't it?
But, sure, the current wording is really stupid and this letter does a great job to prove it. The obligation should apply exclusively to the messages / documents YOU encrypt. And penalties should be enforced only for voluntary destruction of key/clear text. What can you do if your hard drive crash ? And anyway, for the "no disclose" part of the law, even in UK, you cannot be denied a legal counsel at anytime in a procedure. So, this law is already dead.
Good idea, but redo your homework, Mr Straw
A.C.
I have huge files containing random data on my hard drive. They are the output of several RNGs I am doing statistical analyses on. Of course, one of the files MIGHT be an encrypted filesystem. So when MI6 kicks down the door and demands the "key" to decode the random data that they think is hidden information, what will happen? Floggings day and night until I "talk"? Jail time for "not cooperating"? But it's just random data! Really! But since I cannot "prove" this in any way (they can't "prove" me guilty either so there's no crime, but I am ruled in contempt of court and jailed on that. Oh Loverly!
One could make a strong arguement that the forcing one to divulge crypto keys IS a violation of the fifth amendment. In the US you have the right to not give ANY information that can incriminate you in a criminal case. You can not be compelled to testify against yourself. If a key is considered information, you can't be forced to give information that can incriminate you. Period. When you get arrested in the US you must be read your Miranda rights. The first of whice is "You have the right to remail silent." That means shut the fsck up! If you're innocent, they have to find evidence that proves otherwise. You have NO obligation to give it to them. The prosecution can't subpoena you to testify at your own trial. They can hit you with warrants and subpoenas all day long. You don't have to give them squat. If you have a padlock on your shed (yes the one with the bodies) they can't force you to give them the combination. They have to either hire a locksmith to get it or break in. They can legally break into that shed. Just as they can legally attempt to brute force your crypto. >>Sure the cops should be able to gather evidence, but they should have a warrant first. (The easy of getting a warrant is another issue, that deals with judical oversight (or lack there of).) The warrant would only give them the permission to legally attempt to crack your crypto. Nothing more, anything else would be unconstitutional. >>Personally I have no problem with the cops forcing me to decrypt a message. Then you don't get it. You can't be compelled to give ANY information that you don't want to. >>I don't like it, but it's no different than forcing me to unlock a safe. In the US you don't have to unlock your safe in a criminal matter. They can break it open, but you can't be forced to open it. They can brute force crack your crypto, but you don't have to give them anything. Know your rights under the US constitution, or kiss them goodbye. Anonymous because on this one I want to post AND moderate.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
If I keep all my encrypted files on my ISP and access them remotely (though ssh), am I in possession of them?
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
Cops aren't *asking* you anything but administering a breathalizer test. You aren't *giving* them information by allowing it. You are simply allowing them to *collect* information, similar to when a cop searches you for weapons.
Constitutionally, this is *perfectly* legal. If you have any doubt about this, please by all means consult a lawyer. If ANY law in your area is unconstitutional, it's your OBLIGATION as a citizen to have this law contested and repealed.
Every time I hear somebody say "this is yet another example of laws passed that are unconstitutional," I just get this knot in my stomach. If your local legislature is busy passing laws that are *actually* unconstitutional, your local government has some serious problems and needs to be fixed or overthrown ASAP. (I recommend the former.)
Exactly, but this isn't a US law. I was making the comparison to show why it wouldn't qualify for 5th amendment US protections. Citizens in the UK have no such protections (well, not like ours is set up at least).
A law like this would not be passable in the US without suitable alterations.
I disagree. There's a very definite, legally acknowledged difference between a potentially self-incriminating statement or testimonial and allowing/forbidding an officer to investigate.
It's like a cop saying, "Hmm, that person lying in front of you appears to have been stabbed. Oh, my, is that a knife you're hiding behind your back? May I see it please?" You can't simply plead the 5th (or the 4th) and refuse to turn the knife over.
I'd suggest you consult a lawyer if any of this is unclear to you. He can probably better explain it than I can.
In cases like these, a breathalizer isn't considered an "unreasonable" search. Like I suggested elsewhere, you should probably ask a lawyer about all of this. He can probably explain these things better than I can.
IANAL, but after studying some of these URL's you gave me, I've come to the conclusion that these people aren't lawyers either.
I can't even hazard a guess why this is necessary, but I imagine it has something to do with the local government's ability to govern its citizens. By surrendering absolute ownership (you still maintain ownership in "cooperation" with the state, as I understand it), this gives the state the ability to do things like impound your car if you break laws, etc. But along that line of thought it would then be illegal for the state I'm in now to impound my car, since it's still registered in my last state of residence. So again, I'm not quite certain what all of this means.
It would be nice to get a lawyer's take on the matter.
In any event, all of the URL's you quoted deal with vehicle registration and the certificate of title, not driver's licenses or "invisible contracts". The third URL simply quoted a bunch of text from various decisions without giving any sort of background on the cases. For all you know these cases could be about bus terminals and airports barring a person from travelling without sufficient reason, which naturally would be illegal. (I just happen to notice that a couple of the defendants were names like Dulles (the airport?).)
In addition, International Driver's Licenses are only valid in member countries EXCEPT the country of origin. Thus, feel free to get an IDL, but it won't do anything for you while you're in the States.
You're not testifying. You're permitting law enforcement access to information. In the US, refusing would be equivalent to not allowing law enforcement access to your home, in spite of the court order/search warrant.
This has nothing at all to do with 5th amendment protections against self-incrimination.
Oh. Don't get me wrong -- I fully recognize that sometimes are writes are written in dry sand on a windy day.
I just think its a hell of a lot better to have enumerated, hard to modify rights than to have the kind of wishy-washy mishmash that the British have. My impression is that Parliament could turn GB into a totalitarian state tomorrow and that nobody could do anything to stop them legally.
I think that is the peculiar genius of the american constituion: checks and balances, combined with two layers of law (i.e. statutory law and constiutional law). One is easy to change, and so we can adapt. The constitution is very difficult to change -- it is the bedrock of our society.
What scares me is the courts: they have grown more and more liberal. If they go south, then we may as well kiss the constitution goodbye.
-- Slashdot sucks.
Geesh. What is it with me and homophones lately. Ugg. "Are writes".
Shoulda hit that preview button.
-- Slashdot sucks.
That's what I love about the British -- on average, they are much better spoken and written than those of us on the western side of the Atlantic. They also have a gift for poetic understatement that is probably one of the funniest things on the planet.
/., a lot of people criticize the US. And that's a good thing: there are many areas where the US deserves to be criticized. But let's not forget that in some areas at least we are far ahead of the competition.
But I wouldn't want to live there. In the US, I could challenge such a bill on a number of constitutional grounds. I could claim that it violated due process, unreasonable search and ceisure, freedom of speech, and unnenumerated rights such as privacy. It wouldn't last six months (much like the late CDA did not). However, my understanding is that in Britain their are no such consitutional protections -- don't I remember hearing that they don't even have a formal consitution?
On
-- Slashdot sucks.
No, the UK does not have a freedom of information act. The government promised one when it was the opposition, but AFAIK the current proposals are so watered down as to be effectively useless.
no taxation without representation!
If you loose the key - you're foo bar'ed.
I'm really having a hard time understanding the point of this law: If I'm a terrorist, am I likely to be coerced by two years jailtime into revealing a key that will decode messages that will land me in jail for life? Terrorists may be stupid, but I doubt that they are THAT stupid.
On the other hand, if this were rigorously enforced, you could (anonymously of course) send people you dislike a random block of data and tip off the police that they have encrypted messages pertaining to a crime....
no taxation without representation!
Basically this relates to tipping off people about communication interception being illegal. I.e. if the police demand that you decrypt the email I have been sending you, you can't tell me (or anyone else) about it - otherwise it's straight to jail without passing go.
...
In itself that is fair enough - after all you don't want to allow one of the proverbial peadophiles/drug traffickers/international terrorists to tip off their colleagues. What is insidiuous is that the government under the current proposals will not be required to reveal the interception / decryption request even after the fact - not even in summary form. In other words, the government can claim that this law is very effective in preventing crime without ever having to prove it
I don't usually subscribe to conspiracy theories, but this is beginning to suck. But at least we still have the European Court of Human Rights to fall back on.
no taxation without representation!
There is something very satisfying about this. This is an excellent, textbook quality example of how to make one's point on the net. That the issue is important is just gravy.
Warmest Congratulations to the parties responsible.
-- Jeff Paulsen
Does the UK not have similar protections for it's citizens?
--
This reminds me of a /. post from earlier this year about the problems with distributing some highly revered religious texts (The Torah, IIRC) over the Net, in that copies cannot be destroyed without the appropriate ceremoney, etc.
The power of words and information is becoming increasingly tangible--here with this letter to Mr. Straw, with the Torah, and in similar things, like signs that say "Warning: Narrow Bridge" which perform actions of warning by sitting there looking yellow.
Expect some changes in general thought about words being 'just words' in everyday parlance. It's already in philosophy and has been most of the century.
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
Yep, we're going from an age where everything must be encrypted, to an age where everything must be steganographically encrypted.
But steganography requires noise to hide in. Here I was, all happy that higher bandwidths, larger storage devices, etc. are becoming cheaper and more available, and now I realize that I'm going to have to use ten times as much of it, just to break even.
It kinda reminds me of the CPU advances vs bloatware situation. People are able to opt out of that by not using bloatware, and thereby ride the hardware technology wave. But will not using stegano really be an option?
---
Have a Sloppy day!
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
for('activism','terrorism','protest','action','pol itihack'){$a =$_;for('cyber','e-','i-','net.','meta'){print;pri nt$a."\n"}}
----
-- in china, chinese food is just called food.
My passport says im a British Citizen, they got rid of the 'British Subject' bit sometime in the 80s
Also loving being British
Depending on how "possession" is defined, it would seem that this bill essentially requires providers of hosting space for web pages to have access to the private keys of any encrypted data that they are hosting.
Not a good thing for the relationship between web hosting companies and their customers, I would imagine.
A Ron Rivest paper
and a postscript document on deniable encryption by Canetti, Dwork, Noir and Ostrovsky.
Happy hacking!
There was also a short piece on it in 2600 a few issues back, I think in enough detail to implement it if you know basic crypto programming. I think it mentioned some prototypical crypto-stego filesystems already available that use this idea.
IIRC, you divide the cyphertext into blocks, which are either chaff or real data. You use the key to scan along, decoding blocks until you get a decrypt that checks out, and then that block has some of the data and the key to the next valid block. Thus, depending on what key you start with, you can pull out any one of many embedded plaintexts. You can set the ratio of chaffing to be whatever you want, but it generally needs to be pretty high for it to be truly effective. I think, for example, that if you wanted a secure 2 GB filesystem, you'd want an 8 GB disk, with 2 GB of filesystem, 2 GB of alternate plaintext and 4 GB of random chaff. Not very effective or fast, but when you need to be secure...
So if Mr. Fed demands a key, you give him one, and it pulls a couple of porn pictures and some old issues of Phrack out of the cyphertext. You gave him a key, it produced plaintext from a cypertext- get out of jail free.
That there's another key that decrypts entirely other information from the file is impossible to prove, due to the chaffing.
Any sensible criminal would just use this type of encryption.
Your brain. Lovely little thing, isn't it? You have every expectation that the thoughts contained therein are yours alone, and you don't have to account for your thoughts to anyone, only your actions. Thoughts hurt no one by themselves.
Your hard drive. When you can't readily remember everything, you use your handy dandy computer to store it. At this point you have various expectations of privacy, but chances are anyone encountering a file that is encrypted will realize that it isn't for them to see.
Freedom of thought is an individual right, and it is no one's business but the thinkee what is being thought about. But like the schoolyard bully, the powers that be do not wish to be humbled by anything beyond their purview. Encryption is just one of the many tools available to the individual to protect this absolute right against oppressive forces, whether or not they operate under the banner of law.
First off, I'm an American, so I don't know jack about the civil rights one has in the UK. I do know this, they're not enumerated and can be withdrawn by an act of parlament. (Just one of the many grievences that led to the American Revolution.)
Since I've already admitted that I'm not qualified to speak about British law, let's suppose that this law was passed in the United States. (Which isn't unlikely.) This law would be perfectly legal. When the government suppeanas information from you via a search warrant, you have to give it.
Turning over a crypto-key is no different than turning over the key to you shed where you stashed the dismembered corpses of your wife and children. (Claiming privacy for stashing a body doesn't cut it, and it doesn't for encrypting a document either.) It doesn't violate the 5th amendment (Freedom from self-incrimination, for all our non-American friends) because it's evidence gathering, not testamony.
Imprisonment for not retrieving the key is where American and UK law start to diverge. INAL, but I belive the governement can still imprison you under some sort of conspiracy law, but I'm not sure. (I really don't know alot about conspiracy law, except that they only have to prove intent, which has a very low threshhold. Also they don't need physical evidence, (thus the "Conspiracty to ______" charge rather than for "_______ing".)
I understand law enforcement's predicament when it comes to crypto, but it's no different than any other civil-rights vs. law-enforcement issue. Basically the crypto-issue reduces down to Search. Sure having cops rabndomly raid someone's home will prevent crime, but is it to much of a price to pay? Sure key-escrow/recovery will allow the cops to evesdrop on you and the criminals, but is it too much of a price to pay?
It's a classic predicament, and there isn't an easy answer. A long time ago, society decided "No, you can't let the cops barge in and search. They need warrant to do that." Later society decided, "No, you can't just let the cops evesdrop on phone conversations, they need a warrant to do that." Sure the cops should be able to gather evidence, but they should have a warrant first. (The easy of getting a warrant is another issue, that deals with judical oversight (or lack there of).)
Personally I have no problem with the cops forcing me to decrypt a message. I don't like it, but it's no different than forcing me to unlock a safe. (However. I would kind of like to see the FBI crack the crypto.) I also feel the US crypto-export laws should be repealed, because they're completly ineffective against curbing the spread of strong crypto, and only serves to hold back the software industry and e-commerce.
--
The following was just random line noise.
There are several interesting clauses in it, to my eyes, to be found at http://www.dti.gov.uk/cii/el ec/ecbill_part_III.htm onwards.
In particular, I notice sections 10 (2) where (a) and (b) might give grounds for defence / opting-out, but "require" towards the end stamps on our freedom & privacy.
(3) (b) seems to allow for any means the requirer sees fit - I wonder what happens if they choose PGP-signed mail?
(11)(2) and (3) appear to leave a loop-hole; if you're required to release information believed to be held under a key system, might you only have to release "useful information" ('in an intelligible form'), not necessarily the *actual* information you've encrypted.
Big deal? Why've I gone to the trouble of looking all this up?
Because while it will only apply if the police demand it, which will probably only happen if they suspect you of something, the problem is that if we don't *exert* the basic human right to *privacy*, then someone will trample all over it later and you'll wake up powerless to fix things.
~Tim
--
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
Ottawa appears to be a computer industry hotbed (eg. Ottawa Linux Symposium). A lot of tech companies are there, including IBM.
Here's a good site (remember that US$1 = CAN$1.50):
http://www.canadasearch.com/jobsearch/emp loy.htm
Personally, I like the Halifax area. They have a great music scene and people are actually nice. It's not too expensive to live there, either.
The consensus seems to be that digital representations of the words are not actually the words in the same way that analog ink-based writings are the actual words. Your point remains valid, though.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
The letter is absolutely excellent reading, but I'm wondering about the first sentence of the sixth paragraph:
:-) What's to keep /every/ such key request from being "secret"? Is there provision in the bill such that certain extra circumstances must prevail in order for the demand itself to not be publicized?
"If the police ask you keep the demand to hand
over the key secret, telling anyone would
render you liable to 5 years in jail."
Perhaps somebody on the other side of the Pond could clear something up for this rebellious colonist.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
It would seem that to enforce a law like this, law enforcement would have to first prove you were in fact in possession of encrypted data.
It's not too difficult to create a PGP like utility, that produced files without headers, consisting of a single, inscrutable globs of zero entropy data.
Such a file might bear a striking resemblence to ones used in the random number generation experiments, data compression tests, and background radiation measurements we will all be conducting real soon now...:)
Oh well. At least there's Ralph Nader and the Green party. And Michael Moore, if he could ever be drafted to run for office.
Actually, here's a suggestion, kids -- support third party candidates, whatever your political slant is. If everyone went by the best candidate, and not the one more likely to keep you placated given the choice between options A and B, maybe we'd end up with a smarter, more dynamic government, where boneheaded laws like this wouldn't be so likely.
Interesting idea, no?
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
I found the Citizenship & Immigration website. Here is the link to some useful info.
The way I read it, you are assessed an elligibility score. You need a total of 70 (out of 100 possible) points, if you are fluent in both French & English, you get 15 points, if you are fluent in one of them, 9 points. Contact C&I for details about how the points are assessed, but it looks as though it is relatively easy to qualify, especially if you are young, have a degree (or other post-secondary training) or job experience in the computer field.
Hope that helps (and wasn't getting to far off topic)
Dana
Time and time again, I get to think, "Yay, I live in Canada". Here is an excerpt from John Manley (Canada's Industry Minister) outlining his governments crypto policy:
The policy allows Canadians to develop, import and use whatever cryptography
products they wish and does not impose mandatory key recovery requirements or
a licensing regime. "This policy is good for the Canadian economy," said Minister
Manley. "It supports the increased use of electronic commerce products and
services in Canada, as well as the export of Canadian information technologies to
other countries."
Wow! A consumer/industry friendly approach! The full article is here
Dana
The SAFE act does update U.S. law in its application to technology. In effect, an encrypted (locked) file containing, for example, a list of drug distributors compiled by the local drug lab, will be treated the same as a locked closet or safe containing that same information. A search warrant is still required.
The prohibition on telling anyone is the same as in any other criminal investigation, it does not simply apply to encryption. You are generally guilty of interfering with a criminal investigation if you go telling people (your "known associates") that the FBI searched your house. The courts have rarely applied this to talking to a reporter or any other figure as long as it is clear that the subject was not trying to interfere with an investigation.
If the cops come to your house looking for someone, and you call that person after they leave and advise them to flee, your are guilty of obstructing justice, even if that person is later found innocent. This is the same idea.
That all being said. This is a ridiculous law, like many English laws regarding individual rights. They may have lit the first candle of some of these concepts in the modern era, but they have pathetic protections in the areas of Speech, Press, arrest and detention, civil procedure, and state security. That a society with such strong traditions fails so significantly in practice should give some insight to the origins of restrictive democracy in other homogenous countries (Singapore, Greece)
THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal...
One bright spot here. I am a US citizen, and while I am disturbed by the almost daily threats to privacy and other civil rights in this country, what struck me while reading this is the resonance between the British citizens' problems and our own with similar attempts.
If nothing else, we at least are truly starting to talk about issues in this world without regard to traditional borders. It is becoming more of an attack on OUR rights, as opposed to their rights. Once people are the same side of the fence, they work together. What affects the rights of people "over there" affects people everywhere. With forums like this, the position of the world's repressionists is becoming more difficult. We must continue to think in terms of we, regardless of outdated borders and outdated ways of viewing people that many of us have grown up being taught (by our societies, families, churches, etc.). The purpose of free speach has always been to keep unpopular (to the gov't or to the people) opinions flowing so we don't stagnate in our thinking.Hurrah for Stand, for doing something. As long as we keep discussing and acting on these attempts to limit freedom, those who are afraid of everyone having the same freedom they have, will be unable to succeed. The more we incorporate the people of the world into the "we" of our mindsets, the more we move toward the world we all want.
We are agents of the free
Does the UK have anything akin to the U.S. "Freedom of Information Act?" I wonder if an entire Gov't agency could get into trouble for having information that's encrypted that the public should have access to but won't give up the decryption key?
-=-=-=-=-
-=-=-=-=-
My mom's going to kick you in the face!
I don't think McCain is all that bad, so far. I, like many others, have suffered under the delusion that one party is liberal, and the other is conservative, when they are really just two like-minded groups fighting over the same piece of pie. ;)
~ Kish
I'd much prefer those offerings than that of Mr. "I invented the Internet.. Who's this Tim Berners-Lee guy?" or Mr. "My father was a loser who couldn't get a second term even though Clinton did but you'll vote me in because he's my father anyway".. Ugh. I might actually vote if McCain and Bradley get nominated. ;)
~ Kish
Damn straight. Companies like Nortel kind of scare me, though. I always did like Canada's less restrictive laws. Yet another reason why I want to move there. However, I'm a bit annoyed at the law that prevents one from becoming a permanent resident (barring special exceptions) unless you know conversational French. Seems like that would only make sense in Quebec (and who the hell wants to live there..? *ducks and covers*).. The only thing knowing French in Canada will save you from is Canadians who like to say "cute" things about Americans that they can't understand.. ;) Of course, if you do know French, you get to read everything.. twice.. (yes, this all assumes one knows English.. but then, you kind of have to in order to be reading this, right?)
~ Kish
I looked into it a while back, and though IANAL, it seemed to me that you had to be one of a few things: 1) a business person looking for new business oppurtunities (who doesn't want to boost their economy?) 2) someone with job skills immediately transferable to the Canadian job market (and who spoke enough conversational English /and/ French to get by) 3) someone fleeing their country due to some kind of prosecution (often religious or political) 4) if you have a relative in Canada who agrees to sign some stuff and "be responsible" for your financial well-being for up to 10 years.. The last of those 4 (presented in incorrect order, I believe) being the easiest.. If you have a relative in Canada. ;) Being your average person who wants to immigrate (sense 2) is, naturally, the most difficult way to get in.
Of course, if you only wanted short term residency, the options opened up quite a bit. Like if you wanted to go to school there. However, you got the boot as soon as you left school and there were some /harsh/ restrictions on what kind of jobs you could get (that is, only those revolving around your major ;).
If what I used to know now stands incorrect, that would certainly be exciting (I understand those laws are updated every 6 months to a year or so).. It would certainly open up my options as far as moving somewhere more hospitable is concerned.
~ Kish
Of course not.. It was Al Gore. ;)
No, the chances of getting a straight answer out of me on this thread are decidedly not good. Why? Because it's funny. So laugh. :)
~ Kish
"This is why such sober organisations as British Telecom, Hewlett Packard and Microsoft have publicly criticised the Bill at each stage of its development."
Microsoft doing some good in the world besides giving us the WAV format? Nifty. I'm still not sure I would refer to them as "sober" (they seem to prefer free beer to free speech.. most of the time, anyway ;).
~ Kish
The problem is that any mechanism that allows the cops to intercept your communications and use them against you as part of a valid law enforcement effort may also be used by non-police. What's to stop me from alleging that a business communication from one of my competitors contains evidence of illegal activity, then bribing the law enforcement officials to disclose the contents to me, thus gaining a competitive advantage? Would Nixon have needed to send burgulars into the Watergate Hotel if he could simply tell the NSA to retreive the DNC's keys from key escrow, and intercept all their communications?
The problem here is that the massive potential for abuse here far outweighs the legitimate law enforcement needs. Besides which, if your want to see what is in an email you can always simply get a warrant and record the keystrokes as they are typed in, negating the need for anyone disclosing the key.
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney