From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 01:23:28 +0800
To: cypherpunks@Algebra.COM
Subject: Re: Terrorism is a NON-THREAT (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <199710301451.JAA23256@users.invweb.net>
Message-ID: <v03102808b07e5e475a19@[207.167.93.63]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



At 8:11 AM -0700 10/30/97, Tim Griffiths wrote:

> We hear on TV etc people saying "If this draconian measure saves the
> life of one innocent child its worth the loss of my right to walk in
> the park, or whatever". This is clearly shit, but can people suggest a
> sensible measure of when new legistlation is justified?

Is this a trick question, or sumpin'?

If not, then the answer is "the Constitution."

(I see that T.G.Griffiths@exeter.ac.uk is not an American. I apologize for
my U.S.-centric response. Consult your local Charter or whatever to see if
similar rights are spelled out. I suspect most adhocracies do not have
rights clearly spelled out, modulo the irony that several people's
republics have had nominally more rights-ensuring constitutions than the
U.S. has had.)

The longer version being that the Constitution and especially the Bill of
Rights clearly enumerates rights held by the people, and there is no
mention that such basic rights are to be stripped away because the "life of
one innocent child" can be saved. Examples of cases where restricting
religions, books, guns, 4th and 5th and nth Amendment rights would save the
lives of some children are obvious to all. And yet such restrictions remain
unconstitutional. Sure, there are _some_ limits. A church, for example,
cannot practice ritual bloodletting, on children or on adults.  Nor can a
church hand out drugs (the Native American Church and peyote case resolved
this). And so on.

(And many of us disagree with some or all of these limitations.)

In the "right to walk in the park" issue cited above, this gets into
distracting issues about whether the park is open at all hours, the rules
established by whomever built the park, etc.

Curfews are a cleaner example. And courts have generally held curfews
unconstitutional, when they've been challenged.

Travel permits are also unconstitutional in the U.S. People may travel
wherever they wish, associate with whomever they wish, etc. (A very few
exceptions, such as felons and child molestors.)

When in doubt about trading off rights for security, consult the Constitution.

(Yes, I'm aware that it's falling into disrepute and tatters. But it beats
most alternatives.)

--Tim May

The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^2,976,221   | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."