From: tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May)
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1996 13:52:50 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: [Off-Topic]  "Curfews"
Message-ID: <add4f01401021004d019@[205.199.118.202]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Cypherpunks,

This is off-topic for the list, but I want to share it anyway. It touches
on issues of increasing police surveillance, and also touches on the issue
of "age credentials" (in the sense that how else is a cop who stops a young
person for "curfew violation" to determine if a violation has occurred when
most 14- and 15-year-olds carry no driver's licenses?)

The "curfew" meme is spreading quickly, with Clinton calling for a federal
curfew, at least in cities, and Dole trying to outdo him with even more
draconian curfew laws. Many communities already have them, including San
Jose, New Orleans, and other large cities. And my own community, Santa Cruz
County, ironically begins a curfew program on Saturday, tomorrow.

I wrote this item for our local newsgroup, scruz.general, announcing that
"my household" will not abide by this law. I didn't come out and say "my
kids" would not abide by it, inasmuch as I have no kids. So I elliptically
referred to "parents and guardians"...after all, my sister visits with her
husband and son, and in theory I could be the guardian of this kid. And
friends bring their kids.

My point is to send a "warning" to the Sheriff's office that at least some
households think this crackdown on the movements of children is
unacceptable. Children have the right to travel, especially as the parents
permit it, without being stopped, questioned, forced to state their
destinations, and, if the answers don't satisfy the cop, taken into
detention at some children's equivalent of a "drunk tank."

(Some purists claim that children are exempted from normal constitutional
protections, such as the right of free association, the right to be free
from unwarranted searches and seizures, the right of free speech, etc.
Especially this comes up in debates about rights in public schools (speech,
locker searches, movements are controlled, etc.). But I think a public
school environment is a dramatically different situation, whatever one
thinks of these claims about rights, from a kid walking on a public street.
To claim that such a child may be stopped, interrogated, taken to a
detention center, without a crime having been committed, is a clear
violation of his or her rights.)

As I said, should such curfews become widespread, children will of course
need forms of age identification, and this opens yet another door for
universal I.D. cards. And for "travel papers."

Maybe it would be easier to just put a tattoo on their arms--especially as
the younger generation is so into tattoos these days. "Pappieren, bitte.
Macht schnell!"

Here's what I sent in to scruz.general tonight:


So Santa Cruz begins its own fascist crackdown on the free movements of
persons. The "curfew" begins Saturday night.

Allegedly these persons are children, but it is up to parents and
guardians to control the movements of their children or charges in public
places, NOT the function of the police to detain these children or
charges. (Initially a "warning," but the child's name is recorded in
police data bases....if the child is detained a second time, he or she may
face detention time, community service, fines on the parents or guardians,
and so forth.)

ANNOUNCEMENT: I am responsible for the children in my household or in my
custody or guardianship. Not the cops. Not the Sheriff. Not the CAMP
helicopters. Not the narcs. Not the vice squad. Not anyone but me.

I am instructing those in my household or who visit to IGNORE all
interrogations by cops. I am telling them not to let the cops search their
bags, not to let the cops ask where they are going, not to let the cops
demand that they give a reason for being out. If they pick up people from
my household, I expect the children to remain silent and to just fill up
the god-damned jail cells until I eventually raise a ruckus and (maybe)
pick them up.

If some kids are out and about and making mischief, the cops should
concentrate on catching _those_ children! Don't immobilize all kids  for
the sake of supposedly cutting down on the activities of the perps. As
with so many do-gooder laws, the effect will largely be felt on the "good"
kids and will be ignored or evaded by the "bad" kids.

As to the claims that children have no valid reason to be out after 9, or
11, or whatever, this is not for anyone but the parents and guardians to
decide. The god-damned cops are not the ones to decide what a valid reason
for being out is.

(I have heard that "religious worship," a la "Midnight Mass," is one of
the valid reasons for a child to be out after curfew. Fine, religion is
then the stated reason those in my household are out! I will tell them to
tell any nosy cops or Sheriff's Deputies that they are worshippers of
Baal, and Baal requires them to be out to appreciate the darkness. If the
cops claim this is "not a valid religion," I will recite to them the First
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, where it says: "Congress shall make no
law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof.")

I moved to the rural part of Santa Cruz, Corralitos, to escape this
fascist and socialist nonsense, and now I find it primarily the
Sheriff-dominated parts of this county which will now claim to tell
parents and guardians they no longer control their children.

Fuck this.

--Tim May

--
Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software!
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Licensed Ontologist         | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."