From: Alexander Chislenko <alexc@firefly.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 11:01:56 -0800 (PST)
To: Cypherpunks <president@whitehouse.gov
Subject: Re: ITAR / S 1726 / Civil Disobedience
Message-ID: <2.2.32.19961030190411.00c1e988@pop.firefly.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Cypherpunks wrote:
>
>  1) Software is writing, so it is protected by the first amendment, 
>     so the ITAR is unconstitutional.  The idea that only paper books
>     are first amendment protected, and electronic books are not, is just 
>     plain wrong.
>

[   I don't usually CC: my messages to 'president@whitehouse.gov',
  but since it popped up there, I'll leave it.  Feels funny though.  ]

  Writing is expressing yourself in the external medium, in order to
influence other people. So is any other non-coercive action/work.
There has never been a fundamental functional difference between
different forms of expression, but since low technology allowed only
a few of such forms, and they stood apart from each other, it *looked*
like there was a difference.  Now the space of possible ways of
expression is getting increasingly populated, which confuses the
decent thinkers who are trying to fit the richness of the new world
into the old conceptual frameworks.  Most people are not "decent
thinkers" though - and the issues debated are not semantic.
"Books", electrons (that, BTW, play a much greater role in keeping paper
together than in transmitting data over optic cables), and references
to Constitution are just traditional incantations that people use to
express their positions on who they want to have control over what.
These issues are decided by social forces and available technologies.
Distinctions in semantics and delivery methods between books and speech,
electrons and photons, descriptions, imitations or snapshots of reality,
feelings delivered through drugs or through art, etc. have little to do
with the *effects* of these actions - and that's what everybody is
fighting to control.   Making sneaky semantic constructs (e.g., "electronic
books") to make positions look more "legitimate" is a usual tactic on both
sides, but everybody is just being hypocritical pretending that these things
matter. This hypocrisy may work - a little - for both sides. However,
I think that for serious practical purposes, people should engage in
direct social action and implement necessary technologies that may change
the battleground.  Philosophically, there are lots of interesting things
to discuss here as well - and I would be very happy to take part in the
debates - but electrons, books, and Constitution have little relevance
here.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Chislenko <sasha1@netcom.com>     www.lucifer.com/~sasha/home.html
Firefly Network, Inc.: <alexc@firefly.net>  www.ffly.com  617-234-5452
---------------------------------------------------------------------------