4 ms·

> The fourth amendment was not written with strong encryption in mind The fourth amendment, and other constitutional issues, were discussed via encrypted mail.

> The fourth amendment was not written with strong encryption in mind The fourth amendment, and other constitutional issues, were discussed via encrypted mail. It's not like strong encryption (strong in the sense of 'beyond contemporary cryptanalysis', just as the cryptography we have today is maybe not secure against future developments, e.g. quantum computing) was an unknown concept 200 years ago. Indeed, a derivative of a device Thomas Jefferson used for the purpose was used by the US Army in the first part of the 20th century.

xenophonf 11y ago
If, like me, you're curious about this, here are some interesting links: http://lfb.org/thomas-jefferson-used-encryption/ http://lfb.org/thomas-jefferson-used-encryption/ https://books.google.com/books?id=xI_Um3dTTeYC&pg=PA176&lpg=PA176&dq=office+of+foreign+affairs+1785+resolution+inspect+mail&source=bl&ots=iWJeWslQel&sig=3TehrLIRW5VjYiPu4o3a0wlBIX8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDEQ6AEwA2oVChMIoInNhaahxwIVUQWSCh09swAc#v=onepage&q=office%20of%20foreign%20affairs%201785%20resolution%20inspect%20mail&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=xI_Um3dTTeYC&pg=PA176&lpg=... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_disk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_disk I might post on /r/AskHistorians about this 1785 Continental Congress resolution. Everyone, including Ludlow, seems to quote Unmailable rather than referring directly to source material, and I haven't been able to find any kind of archive of pre-Constitutional law (which might have a copy of the actual resolution in it). In any case, that the government of the time was tampering with long distance communications, i.e., postal mail, with the express purpose of interfering with political discourse should serve as a reminder to everyone to be ever vigilant when some public servant or politician proposes to weaken safeguards against the same.
Tloewald 11y ago
Good point! But the key was either something a person had to memorize or a physical object. So it comes down to questioning (which goes back to the 5th amendment) or search and seizure (which is what the 4th amendment is clearly about). In any event, both the impenetrability of strong encryption and the scope (the value of the data that can be encrypted) are perhaps further beyond hand-executed codes than an atom bomb is beyond a musket.
- TheCoelacanth 11y ago
  > But the key was either something a person had to memorize or a physical object. So it comes down to questioning (which goes back to the 5th amendment) or search and seizure (which is what the 4th amendment is clearly about). The same is true of modern encryption. At some point the key (or the passphrase used to secure the actual key) will either be written down (or stored digitally in plaintext) or memorized.

xenophonf 11y ago

If, like me, you're curious about this, here are some interesting links: http://lfb.org/thomas-jefferson-used-encryption/ http://lfb.org/thomas-jefferson-used-encryption/ https://books.google.com/books?id=xI_Um3dTTeYC&pg=PA176&lpg=PA176&dq=office+of+foreign+affairs+1785+resolution+inspect+mail&source=bl&ots=iWJeWslQel&sig=3TehrLIRW5VjYiPu4o3a0wlBIX8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDEQ6AEwA2oVChMIoInNhaahxwIVUQWSCh09swAc#v=onepage&q=office%20of%20foreign%20affairs%201785%20resolution%20inspect%20mail&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=xI_Um3dTTeYC&pg=PA176&lpg=... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_disk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_disk I might post on /r/AskHistorians about this 1785 Continental Congress resolution. Everyone, including Ludlow, seems to quote Unmailable rather than referring directly to source material, and I haven't been able to find any kind of archive of pre-Constitutional law (which might have a copy of the actual resolution in it). In any case, that the government of the time was tampering with long distance communications, i.e., postal mail, with the express purpose of interfering with political discourse should serve as a reminder to everyone to be ever vigilant when some public servant or politician proposes to weaken safeguards against the same.

Tloewald 11y ago

Good point! But the key was either something a person had to memorize or a physical object. So it comes down to questioning (which goes back to the 5th amendment) or search and seizure (which is what the 4th amendment is clearly about). In any event, both the impenetrability of strong encryption and the scope (the value of the data that can be encrypted) are perhaps further beyond hand-executed codes than an atom bomb is beyond a musket.

TheCoelacanth 11y ago
> But the key was either something a person had to memorize or a physical object. So it comes down to questioning (which goes back to the 5th amendment) or search and seizure (which is what the 4th amendment is clearly about). The same is true of modern encryption. At some point the key (or the passphrase used to secure the actual key) will either be written down (or stored digitally in plaintext) or memorized.