From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 06:50:51 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Spying On and Burgling Churches...is it "Legal"?
In-Reply-To: <199705232059.NAA13536@krypton.chromatic.com>
Message-ID: <v03102800afabc51894d9@[207.167.93.63]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 1:59 PM -0700 5/23/97, Ernest Hua wrote:
>> And some government spook is going to break into a church's computer
>> to find out if they are secret terrorists because they oppose this
>> or that government policy.
>
>This is an interesting point on which very little serious debate is
>taking place:
>
>    Is it EVER okay for spooks to break into a church's computer to
>    find out if they are secret terrorists?

Perhaps there is "little serious debate" on this because the U.S.
Constitution and 200+ years of later history pretty well decided the matter.

Granted, Hoover and his Secret Police were not the first to violate the
Fourth Amendment (or the First, etc.). Granted, the spying on the Catholic
Church with regard to the "Sanctuary Movement" (vis-a-vis the sheltering of
El Salvadoran refugees) was not even the most recent such example.

But there can be little "serious debate" about extra-legal,
unconstitutional spying.

However, Cypherpunks don't believe laws protect privacy.

The proper solution is strong cryptography and related tools. (And possible
private and quiet disposal of anyone caught inside a home, church, etc.,
planting illegal bugs, breaking and entering, etc.)

The real debate these days is whether such privacy tools should be
controlled and licensed by the government. I think the answer is clear.

Oh, and Cypherpunks don't much believe in this debate either. Regardless of
what the herd votes on, or approves out of complacence and ignorance,
Cypherpunks will tend to ignore such decisions.

>I'm not sure the answer is clearly one way or another, and I am
>willing to bet that the tone of the answers will mostly be emotional
>appeals to some idealistic standard or pessimistic nightmares.

I suggest you reread the U.S. Constitution, where the answer to your debate
was pretty clearly resolved. If the government wants to get a search
warrant against a church or any other entity, they can try. Or even a
wiretap (though such things didn't exist at the Founding). But the U.S.
Constitution does not provide for secret police breaking into churches or
homes in the dead of night without court authorization. Period. Legal
scholars are invited to correct me on this one if I am wrong.

(Yes, I'm aware that they do it, and that they can possibly even cite the
Executive Decision authorizing them to break into homes, plant evidence,
kill the residents, whatever. This doesn't make their actions
constitutional, and someday some court is going to have the guts to say so.)

--Tim May

There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.
Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
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."