1994-07-01 - Devil’s Advocate (again)

Header Data

From: Anonymous User <nobody@soda.berkeley.edu>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: f924335623f87a62bf66ea89ad2b7fdb3706905972ff442b97e5ce2c4e32a877
Message ID: <199407011249.FAA25594@soda.berkeley.edu>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1994-07-01 12:49:48 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 1 Jul 94 05:49:48 PDT

Raw message

From: Anonymous User <nobody@soda.berkeley.edu>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 94 05:49:48 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Devil's Advocate (again)
Message-ID: <199407011249.FAA25594@soda.berkeley.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

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.

To respond to the sender of this message, send mail to
remailer@soda.berkeley.edu, starting your message with
the following 8 lines:
Response-Key: ideaclipper