Re: Encryption is now illegal? (Re: U.S. Secret Service shuts down NYC cellular disruption network)

[brent saner via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

Black's Law Dictionary (revised 4 ed.; the most recent is 12 ed. but I
don't have a copy- if anyone has a newer edition, I'd be curious to see if
it still aligns), which is generally to be aligned and authoritative and
even the "gold standard" for defining terminology in the legal wheelhouse,
defines "illegal" as:

ILLEGAL.
Not authorized by law; illicit; unlawful; contrary to law; Protest of
Downing, 164 Okl. 181, 23 P.2d 173.
*Sometimes this term means merely that which lacks authority of or support
from law; but more frequently it imports a violation. Etymologically, the
word seems to convey the negative meaning only. But in ordinary use it has
a severer, stronger signification; the idea of censure or condemnation for
breaking law is usually presented. But the law implied in illegal is not
necessarily an express statute. Things are called "illegal" for a violation
of commonlaw principles. And the term does not imply that the act spoken of
is immoral or wicked; it implies only a breach of the law. Tiedt v.
Carstensen, 61 Iowa, 334, 16 N.W. 214.*


Which *seems* fine and dandy and pretty clear until you get to the 1 1/3
page definition of "law", summarized as:

LAW.
That which is laid down, ordained, or established. A rule or method
according to which phenomena or actions co-exist or follow each other. That
which must be obeyed and followed by citizens, subject to sanctions or
legal consequences, is a "law." Koenig v. Flynn, 258 N.Y. 292, 179 N. E.
705. (...)


"Lawful", however, is a little more helpful in the discussion:

LAWFUL.
Legal; warranted or authorized by the law; having the qualifications
prescribed by law; not contrary to nor forbidden by the law. Ohio Automatic
Sprinkler Co. v. Fender, 108 Ohio St. 149, 141 N.E. 269, 275; McDonnell v.
Murnan Shipbuilding Corporation, 210 Ala. 611, 98 So. 887, 889; Hafner Mfg.
Co. v. City of St. Louis, 262 Mo. 621, 172 S.W. 28, 33.
*The principal distinction between the terms "lawful" and "legal" is that
the former contemplates the substance of law, the latter the form of law.
To say of an act that it is "lawful" implies that it is authorized,
sanctioned, or at any rate not forbidden, by law. To say that it is "legal"
implies that it is done or performed in accordance with the forms and
usages of law, or in a technical manner. In this sense "illegal" approaches
the meaning of "invalid." For example, a contract or will, executed without
the required formalities, might be said to be invalid or illegal, but could
not be described as unlawful. Further, the word "lawful" more clearly
implies an ethical content than does "legal." The latter goes no further
than to denote compliance, with positive, technical, or formal rules; while
the former usually imports a moral substance or ethical permissibility. A
further distinction is that the word "legal" is used as the synonym of
"constructive," which "lawful" is not. Thus "legal fraud" is fraud implied
or inferred by law, or made out by construction. "Lawful fraud" would be a
contradiction of terms. Again, "legal" is used as the antithesis of
"equitable." Thus, we speak of "legal assets," "legal estate," etc., but
not of "lawful assets," or "lawful estate." But there are some connections
in which the two words are used as exact equivalents. Thus, a "lawful"
writ, warrant, or process is the same as a "legal" writ, warrant, or
process.*

(*emphasis* added)
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/AJE4ZKP73BA2GBZ656SDIK75BVE2LCZI/