From: liberty@gate.net (Jim Ray)
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 95 02:59:32 PDT
To: Michael@umlaw.demon.co.uk
Subject: Re: Root Causes Roots cont.
Message-ID: <199507190957.FAA45561@tequesta.gate.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Professor Froomkin writes:

<snip>

>I always understood "writing code" as in "cypherpuks write code" 
>to mean computer code, that is FORTRAN, C++, assembler, perl or 
>whatever.  I understand "writing IN code" to be the use of 
>cryptographic tools such as codes or cyphers.  

Sorry I misunderstood you, professor. I had always heard those "computer
codes" you mention referred to as "computer languages," and I thought
of "code" as refering to use of cryptography software like Nautilus or 
(of course) PGP. A quick skim of your interesting article reveals that 
this "code" vs. "language" terminology nitpicking is no-doubt as important
to you as it is to me, as we both know that's where legal and political
debates are won and lost. I freely admit my "excess of libertarian 
paranoia," [though I prefer to term my feelings "healthy respect for
world history"]. 

NOTE: I have always been computer-and-math-impaired compared to others
who have been on this list much longer, so I'm *certainly* no final 
authority as to what stuff should be called.

A later post indicates the professor's interesting article is at:

www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/6095/articles/froomkin-metaphor/text.html

>Thus my claim 
>that the right to write IN code may have existed in the 1790s, 
>but the right to write [computer] code could not (since there 
>were no computers).   

Or alternating current [thank you, Mr. Tesla]. The founders anticipated
inventions such as both of these in Article 1, Section 8.

>Of course, I could be wrong about this, 
>since however you define it, it's debateable whether I'd pass the
>code test to qualify as a cypherpunk, since I stopped writing 
>code when I gave up programming for lawyering, and I didn't start 
>writing in code when I started writing about codes.

I'd certainly flunk *any* C-punk test, unless it involves just 
writing IN code by using PGP for both encryption and authentication,
or the warm feeling I get in my heart for Phil Zimmermann.

>
>In any case it's a matter of definitions, not timelines.
>
>Note: I am not suggesting that the right to write code lacks 
>constitutional protection; just that the protection wouldn't 
>come from the 9th amendment.  

Agreed. As my earlier post (sadly) admitted, the 9th is *NOT* in vogue
these days. I also said that since the 9th is so universally ignored,
it just clutters-up the rest of the Bill of Rights and [perhaps] it 
therefore should be repealed. The people who say, "The 9th Amendment 
means nothing," or "it has no teeth," seem to be the same folks most 
reluctant to even *discuss* repeal, perhaps because discussion would 
inevitably bring publicity to those of us who support a 9th Amendment
*with* _plenty_ of teeth. 

For _much_ better "forgotten 9th" scholarship than my random thoughts
on this list, I suggest the kind and cooperative "market liberal" folks
at the suddenly-influential CATO Institute, located at URL:

http://www.cato.org/main/

<snip>
JMR
Regards, Jim Ray

"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." Voltaire


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Freedom isn't Freeh

iQCVAwUBMAxxpG1lp8bpvW01AQG4TwP7BDhULQdsfbruwK59t+0s7NtkIZDfARl6
boKTQ1qbO8hQkEQJ+8d0L9p2RHmDlbS/MEwEY68sLRUT1MiP2ybT9UcHK/TPbial
aOVLZLprWqVW2sAL+gx7A3JPsGYdY/s8ZVllsX1xxH52btoaish890OOG/3e7v7r
afHBEWfP6k4=
=3F7U
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----