3 ms·

The Language thing is unnecessary. Since they record all calls they can find someone to translate later. But maybe you're right and that is too much trouble for

• wnevets 12y ago
  or you could make up your own language, maybe should sort of encrypted speech.
  • belovedeagle 12y ago
    This is the problem I see with outlawing encryption entirely. At what point does something become "encrypted" w/r/t the law? This may seem like a silly question, but I think it's a real concern: Is rot13 encryption? (No, of course not!, you say.) How about a shift cipher with an unknown distance? (Well... it's just as trivially breakable as rot13..., you say.) How about a book cipher? This one I particularly like, being quite amenable to your idea of "encrypted speech": does reading out a book cipher over the phone constitute "encryption" in some sense? And I also considered it for the lavabit case: if the gov't has a wiretap warrant for your phone, under their reasoning in lavabit, couldn't they compel you to disclose the key to the book cipher in that case? That seems to be crossing the 5th amendment line there, to me; toeing the line of the 1st and 4th as well. And so, I thought at the time, it seems pretty obvious that the "assistance" clause of the wiretap law did /not/ compel revealing the key any more than it would compel revealing the key of the spoken book cipher.
    • gizmo686 12y ago
      This type of ambiguity is not uncommon in law. My guess would be that they would look at intent (ie, did you manipulate the message to make it difficult for a third party to understand), as well as defectiveness (ie, rot26 is so stupid that we will only charge you with attempted encryption).
  • deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]