On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 05:28:24PM -0700, Ray Dillinger wrote:
For Tim: Why are you attempting to provoke public discussion about things that could get people jailed or worse for discussing them? It's interesting to see you post your "sweet spot" message and then call someone *else* an agent provocateur.
I suspect Bear has good intentions and may even honestly believe this, but it is nevertheless misleading. Talking about the political implications of technologies -- and taking no actions! -- is protected by the full force of the First Amendment. Johnson got in trouble for allegedly making direct threats of physical violence. Bell is in jail for most of the next decade because he crossed state lines and showing up at homes of current or former federal agents. It is true that the Feds are monitoring cypherpunks closely, and it is also probably true that without the stalking charges, they may have found other charges to levy against Bell. It is also true that if you embrace AP-type concepts, they may pay closer attention to you. But even given the tattered First Amendment, there is still a difference between speech and action. -Declan