From: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 23:26:19 -0800 (PST)
To: Steve Schear <azur@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: The Science Generations, II
Message-ID: <199702170726.XAA26470@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 8:58 PM -0800 2/16/97, Steve Schear wrote:

>BTW, regarding the difficulty in obtaining chemical reagents (unless you're
>in a qualified educational program or professionally employed at a large
>industrial company), I came across a relatively new company targeting the
>amateur scientist, Chemical Resale of Santa Barbara
><http://www.sb.net/wirehead>.  It carries only a limited selection and
>prices seem very high (undoubtedly due to his small volume).

And as part of the "War on (Some) Drugs," many chemical purchases now
require licenses of various sorts. As a growing number of chemicals are
classified as "precursors" to a growing medicine cabinet full of
mind-altering or reality-enhancing recreational substances, this "chemical
escrow"  is a step in the direction of outlawing all cash commerce.

Some legal scholars are claiming that there is no provision in the
Constitution guaranteeing anonymity of purchases, and, indeed, a growing
number of purchases can no longer be anonymous--guns, explosives, chemicals
of various sorts, etc. How long before _all_ transactions must be recorded,
True Names revealed, etc.?

(I believe this interpretation is incorrect. I believe "due process" means
that a court order, or specific enabling legislation (as for guns) must be
produced. If Alice sells something to Bob, having the government as a third
party is, I think, a violation of the Fourth. However, the "power to
regulate commerce" could be the root password, as national security often
is.)

I'm thinking about these issues because I'm working on a position paper for
Michael Froomkin's session at CFP. (Froomkin is one of the legal scholars
aruing that transactions may have no constitutional expectation of privacy.)

>Regarding amateur experiments with 'real' rockets, the Fed have passed a
>plethora of laws effectively resticting what non-governmental bodies may
>investigate.  See 14 CFR PART 101, 22 CFR Sec. 121.16 and 49 CFR Sec.
>173.88. I guess I can't play with matches anymore.  Thank you Congress.

Nor can you play with knives, by the way. I read rec.knives, and the
explosion of laws about how and where knives may be carried, used, owned,
bought, etc., and what blade shapes are allowed, what lengths are felonies
to possess, etc., is truly mind-numbing. I concluded that I'm committing
misdemeanors in nearly all counties I enter in California, and felonies in
some. All for possessing and/or carrying what I bought legally just a few
years ago.

This is the morass of laws into which we have sunk.

I suspect similar laws--regulating commerce, protecting children, disarming
bad guys, etc.--will be used soon enough on crypto.

--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."