On Tue, 24 Jun 1997, Tim May wrote:
(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.)
OK, Tim, I'll try: The use of communication in furtherance of a crime shall add five years . . .etc. The use of any device to enhance the speed of communication in furtherance of a crime shall . . . etc. The use of any device to disguise a voice in furtherance of . . . etc. The use of any cryptographic means of communication in furtherance . . . Now, if two and three above are constitutional, why aren't one and four? MacN