1994-07-01 - Re: Devil’s Advocate (again)

Header Data

From: “Perry E. Metzger” <perry@imsi.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 8de280292a8879c6649d1fca0300a6757cee8ff456458cb95e7935b05a7de2c6
Message ID: <9407011303.AA16253@snark.imsi.com>
Reply To: <199407011249.FAA25594@soda.berkeley.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1994-07-01 13:04:15 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 1 Jul 94 06:04:15 PDT

Raw message

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@imsi.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 94 06:04:15 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Devil's Advocate (again)
In-Reply-To: <199407011249.FAA25594@soda.berkeley.edu>
Message-ID: <9407011303.AA16253@snark.imsi.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Anonymous User says:
> I notice the argument against "why do you need crypto... are you
> doing something ILLEGAL" is that the argument that "why don't you
> want a camera in your house... are you doing something ILLEGAL".
> This is good, but where in the Constitution does it say that people
> can have crypto not regulated by the Government?  Would this be
> under the First Amendment of free speech?
> Again, I am playing Devil's Advocate here.

The first amendment is a good start.
The fourth amendment protections against unreasonable search could be
held to not require that everyone conduct all their business in such a
way as to make search maximally easy. (The courts have already held,
for instance, that you are under no obligation to keep your business
records in english.)
The ninth amendment, and the derived "right to privacy" ideas that
culminated in Roe v. Wade, could also be invoked.