From: "Pat Farrell" <pfarrell@netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 94 12:34:08 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: RE: (fwd) \"Will You Be a Terrorist?\"  ( Moi? )
Message-ID: <55807.pfarrell@netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


In message Sat, 17 Sep 1994 17:41:26 -0700, blancw@{pylon|microsoft}.com  writes:
> .  Violation
> It is so telling, that legal documents on crime will always
> state that violations are of "section 351, 844 (f) or (i),
> 1114, 1116, 1203, 1361, 1363, 1751,  2280, 2281, 2331, or
> 2339",   or a violation of "this or any other Federal criminal
> law".

This is the usual obfuscation that your congresscritters prefer.

It is interesting to compare that with the approach used when
the Feds are serious.

I just received a DoD clearance after filling in my life's history,
fingerprints, financial report, etc., waiting for the folks to
check out if I lied, etc.

Before it became active, I was handed a stack of papers with all the
applicable codes and sections, and told to read them. They had
the usual things that you'd expect, the penalty for treason is death or life
in jail, $30,000 fine for this or that minor crime, warnings about
disclosing "codebooks and ciphers", etc.

Then they hand you another form that says you read the stack.

There is no way that I can claim that I didn't know exposing
classified information is bad.

The crime bill that you and Tim quote looks to me to be just
another place for selective enforcement.

Pat

ob crypto: none, or little, even if the phrases "codebook or cipher"
    was scattered throughout the stack of chapters and verses.

Pat Farrell      Grad Student                 pfarrell@cs.gmu.edu
Department of Computer Science    George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Public key availble via finger          #include <standard.disclaimer>