From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 07:42:04 +0800
To: cypherpunks@Algebra.COM
Subject: Re: The Grand Compromise is Coming
In-Reply-To: <199706242102.OAA31118@slack.lne.com>
Message-ID: <v0310280bafd607388c55@[207.167.93.63]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



At 4:13 PM -0700 6/24/97, Adam Back wrote:
>Eric Murray <ericm@lne.com> writes:

>> As Declan notes, Congress is driven to compromise.  The
>> government side can propose ever more draconian laws in order to
>> engineer the 'compromise' to whatever it wants.  On the other side, we
>> are stuck, because we have been asking for things that we really want, not
>> bargaining chips.  Even if we were to ask for bargaining chips that
>> are more than we really want, how much further than completely free
>> crypto can you go?
>
>Oh I dunno.  We could get Tim to give a congressional statement,
>highlighting the interesting consequences of a fully developed crypto
>anarchic society.  That'd put the fear into them.  ('Course the
>problem is we'd never get him to go within 100 miles of the place, and
>he'd probably consider it a waste of time talking to them anyway.)

Actually, I was born in Bethesda, just north or northeast of The Once and
Future Swamp, lived in Maryland and Virginia for half my childhood, and
attended Fairfax County High Schools (Langley, across the woods from the
CIA, of course, and Edison). I've even back back several times, for
conferences and visits; I even drove out to see the NSA in 1991, to help
focus my energies.

(Note: "focus my energies" should not be taken as a euphemism for shaping
my charges.)

But I don't get the point of what would be gained by my testimony. It
wouldn't  help the Cause.

And, as many of us have noted, what is there to compromise about? If one
has religious freedom, for example, and a series of laws are proposed or
passed to limit this religious freedom in some way, what kind of compromise
is even remotely acceptable?

(By the way, I have no heard no good counters to my point that the "use of
crypto in furtherance of a crime" is quite analogous to "freedom of
religion shall not be abridged, but saying a heathen prayer in furtherance
of a crime shall subject the heathen to an additional five years of
imprisonment." This is why I think the "use of a special language or
whispering in furtherance of a crime" provisions of SAFE will probably be
struck down by the Supremes, unless they, too, have forgotten what the
Constitution is all about.)

The First Amendment is all we need to speak in the language of our
choosing, including the languages of whispers, Talegu, Navajo, pig latin,
coded signals, and 4000-bit RSA.

We don't need any "reaffirmations" of this basic right, at least not from
Congress.

--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."