From: Andrew.Spring@ping.be (Andrew Spring)
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 95 13:53:48 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Anti-Electronic Racketeering Act of 1995 (fwd)
Message-ID: <v01510102ac3065ad0aaa@[193.74.217.20]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


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


>You _were_ using that software on a _computer_ weren't you?  Guess it's
>one of your racketeer's tools, so we'll have to take it for ourselves, er, um,
>for evidence and protection of national security....

This wasn't really my point.  Grassley's bill implies that uploading crypto
to an overseas FTP site would qualify as a predicate act, needed for a RICO
seizure.  I think he is assuming that someone would do this for the
purposes of making money: and that anything bought with that money would be
RICOable.  I don't think he or anyone else in Congress is aware that people
tend to do this stuff for free.

I remember one of the sponsors of the CDA ranting about pornographers
"profiteering" from pornographic images on the Internet, blissfully unaware
that stuff downloaded from alt.sex.binaries.insert.your.fetish.here doesn't
profit anyone but the phone company (for the hours you stay online to get
it).

So I'm wondering who this RICO stuff applies to.  The guy who wrote it and
uploaded it to an FTP site?  He's not profiting.  The guy who uses it? He
didn't commit the predicate act.  Who?


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6ui

iQCVAgUBMArYUI4k1+54BopBAQGk6AQAufSXBBB9/XoDcKoWaalLdp+hxO/kSER1
wEtEAcRqh3YZR9IRVFuFsmotJ8exupaOzy+OLldublq1RfaCR/Jjqvc0V1uSovYA
DA9eFjYApGSPoDkQp6C6ZVcJVqpD1QQhNYpY96nABTp45AYsMlrdpartwjJZKDLz
Rx1EFNVwoC4=
=K75H
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Thank you VERY much!  You'll be getting a Handsome Simulfax Copy of your
OWN words in the mail soon (and My Reply).
<Andrew.Spring@ping.be> PGP Print: 0529 C9AF 613E 9E49  378E 54CD E232 DF96
   Thank you for question, exit left to Funway.