From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 20:01:57 +0800
To: Dave Del Torto <ddt@lsd.com>
Subject: Re: Electronic locksmiths are watching you (Belgium's ban onPGP)
Message-ID: <m0u3CNo-0008xRC@pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 05:07 PM 3/30/96 -0500, Dave Del Torto wrote:
>At 1:25 am 3/30/96, jim bell wrote:
>[elided]
>>I think it's obvious that governments around the world have a very poor
>>record of responding "well" to encryption with any kind of acceptable
>>legislation.  Arguably, laws should exist for the benefit of the public, but
>>what's happening is that governments are using their authority to try to
>>restrain the political consequences of technical developments.  I see no
>>benefit to the public in laws against encryption, and certainly no net
>>benefit.
>>
>>We should be particularly suspicious of any hint of a pan-European ban or
>>control of encryption, because that is exactly the kind of development that
>>could usher in a secretly-negotiated treaty that might be argued to be
>>binding on the public.               [elided]
>
>IMHO, this represents a very America-centric, and a rather innacurate, view
>of the world. Sure, we live in a great country in many ways. Sure, we still
>enjoy many priviledges, such as owning and using strong crypto. In point of
>fact, though, the US is by far the most "behind" country in the wired world
>as far as Privacy protections and legislation.


You _COMPLETELY_ misinterpreted what I said.  I was referring, obliquely, to 
a tricky practice whereby the US government writes up a treaty, and pushes 
it through the Senate, requiring only 51 votes (or even less, depending on 
the quorum.  Participation of the House is not required, BTW, for treaty 
ratification.)  The resulting "treaty" is interpreted as being binding not 
merely on the government, but is also (and incorrectly, I believe)  on the 
citizens as well.  The reason, as I recall, is a misinterpretation of a 
portion of the Constitution which states that treaties are the law of the 
land.  The proper interpretion would be that such a treaty is indeed binding 
on the government, but not the citizenry who didn't sign it and whose 
Representatives didn't vote on it.  

The question is, "is it possible for the government to pass a law  that 
violates a citizen's constitutional rights by putting it into the form of an 
international treaty?"  In my opinion, this is unconstitutional, but sadly, 
I believe that this practice is nominally tolerated.  I believe there's at 
least one anti-narcotics treaty, in the 1960's,  which was foisted on the 
citizenry in this way.

Naturally, I welcome details and clarification by any REAL LAWYERS around 
here.  But if I'm right, the danger is that once Europe agrees on some sort 
of broad anti-crypto rule, all the US government needs to do to force such a 
rule on US citizens is to do their "write a treaty" schtick and we're all 
screwed.  It wouldn't _have_ to be Europe; but this would be the most 
convenient excuse they could dredge up.

>Cypherpunks like Jim need to keep doing their homework before they make
>such quasi-factual statements.

Cypherpunks like Dave need to pull their head out and read text carefully 
before responding to it.  If you really have no idea what I'm talking about, 
you need to do your research.

Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com