From: "A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security" <PADGETT@hobbes.orl.mmc.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 04:23:34 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Communication
Message-ID: <960213100636.2021706c@hobbes.orl.mmc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Jim rites:
>Logic lesson for Padgett:
>There are at least three categories here:
>1.  Government restricts communication.
>2.  Government neither assists nor restricts communication.
>3.  Government assists communication.  (through stolen tax dollars, BTW.)

Oh, now I see where you are confused. To me there are at least six
categories - the three you mention but in matrix form with two
columns: Wholly inside the USA and from the USA to/from "elsewhere".

(2) applies inside the USA and in some cases (3) - and tax dollars are not
necessarily "stolen", the Constitution specifies that taxes may be levied for
certain matters. (1) does not apply though through the rationale/excuse of
"maximising the use for all" some regulations have been enacted primarily
by the FCC. It is not improbable that the FCC's area of responsibility might
extend to the Internet once considered a "national resource". Not saying
right or wrong, just "could" & would not be surprised.

In the case of communications with "other" entities, I expect all three to
apply in different instances - what makes anon.penet.fi different from the
L. A. Times.

Now in the case of extra-National communications, I believe that in certain
cases the Nation-state has not only the sovereign right of control but the 
obligation to control. For example just to pick a popular example, France 
might negotiate a trade agreement with the USA that included an agreement to 
block all PGP communications between the two countries. That would be legal.

What the US does not really have is the *ability* to control communications.

							Warmly,
								Padgett