From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 95 10:47:17 PST
To: nzook@bga.com (Nathan Zook)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court on Anonymous Bills
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9501211257.D14968-0100000@lia.bga.com>
Message-ID: <199501211846.KAA11212@netcom7.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Nathan Zook wrote:

> There can be little question that any attacks on remailers and civilian
> strong crypto will face challenges on the basis of Free Speech and Equal
> Protection.  The question is: can the state show compelling interest?  I
> believe that it can.  Anonymous agents, by their very nature, are immune
> from state restraint.  Since our entire legal system centers around state
> restraint, I believe that Free Speech and Equal Protection will fall to the
> four horsemen.

But mail and messages from "foreigners" is also "immune from state
restraint," and yet we haven't seen either a ban on mail from outside
the U.S. or a requirement that such mail be inspected, identified,
etc.

(I'm not sure if your line "our entire legal system centers around
state restraint" refers to state constraint of citizens, as you seem
to imply in your conclusion, or constraint _of_ the state, as the
Constitution seems to imply.)

Likewise, if I receive a letter, open it, and find a request to remail
it to another address, isn't this equivalent to our remailers? Does
this imply a compelling State need to open all mail?

Does the plotting of various crimes in private homes imply a
compelling State need to place microphones and video cameras in such
places?

Clearly not, so I don't think the privacy of e-mail will soon be
breached just because there are some abuses in some people's minds.

> There is the general question of political speech.  Unfortunately, there is
> little anonymous _US_ political speech.  Furthermore, sedition is a crime,
....
> I believe, therefore, that both the court and the dissent bode poorly for
> anonymous encrypted mail.

But anonymous handbills are quite common, posted all over the place
here in my home town, and the Supreme Court ruled quite properly that
identities are not required for speech. Likewise, radio call it shows
are dominated by anonymous call-ins.

Ditto for "Name Witheld by Request" letters to the editor, etc.

Lots of speech is not anonymous, because Congresscritters are
identified, because Rush Limbaugh obviously _wants_ his name
publicized, because I want my name attached to my views, etc. But not
because there's any law saying political speech cannot be anonymous.

Quite the contrary.

--Tim May

-- 
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
                       | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
Cypherpunks list: majordomo@toad.com with body message of only: 
subscribe cypherpunks. FAQ available at ftp.netcom.com in pub/tc/tcmay