From: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 11:43:46 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Parolees Can't Possess Crypto
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19961218104243.00720110@panix.com>
Message-ID: <v03007802aeddf8f807f4@[207.167.93.63]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 10:42 AM -0500 12/18/96, Duncan Frissell wrote:
>The new federal parole guidelines that will ban some cons from the nets
>will also ban them from posessing crypto software which will also make
>virtually any computer use impossible.  "Main Justice" does say that with
>the Klinton Admins plans for universal access counter this proposal since
>the cons will have access at schools, libraries, etc. (not to mention
>Internet Cafes).

And these sorts of attempted restrictions will lend further support for
"Interenet Driver's Licenses," a la is-a-person credentials.

Between setting age limits for sites on the Net, and ensuring that wimmin
are not exposed to sexist sites, and keeping the ten million ex-cons and
permanently paroled proles off the Net, citizen-units will have to be
tracked constantly.

(Oh, as to libraries and schools, there are already moves to tie access to
possession of a library card, to stop the common practice of pranksters
leaving the library Web terminal with bookmarks to various X-rated sites,
or from leaving obscene/racist messages left on the screen. Doesn't stop
the practices, but goes a long way to suppressing such things. I wouldn't
be at all surprised to see the earliest cardreader gizmos (a la the new
smartcards needed for the latest Clipper abominations) applied first to
libraries and schools. Who could object to innocent children being
protected by having to carry ID cards? Or bracelets? Or tatoos?)

As to Internet Cafes, as various abuses are reported (think: death threats,
obscene posts to "rec.arts.after-school," encounters in IRC chat rooms,
etc.), there will be a clampdown on unrestricted use of such terminals. ID
cards, cardreaders, citizen-unit tracking, etc.

(One mechanism--lawyers can jump in--may be to have court precedents that
the owner of a terminal or PC is responsible for messages emanating from
his terminal. "I didn't send it" will not be an effective excuse. And to
some extent this is as it should be, vis-a-vis our usual points about
digital signatures and the need for carefully keeping one's personna
secure.)

--Tim May

Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside"
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I 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,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."