At 4:39 PM 1/20/96, Michael Froomkin wrote:
IMHO the 2nd amendment argument is bunk. [I haven't seen the Wired article BTW, so this is just a general point.]
I haven't seen the "Wired" article either, as I no longer read it. I agree with Michael that an association of crypto with arms is a long reach, unsupported in anything I've seen in the Constitution or related papers. Moreover, any successful link made could be disastrous. After all, it is well-established--whether we like it or not--that the government can regulate and control access to hydrogen bombs, bazookas, nerve gases, grenades, fully-automatic weapons, and even various kinds of rifles and handguns. I would hate to see crypto truly classified as an armament (beyond what the ITARs say) and thus be subject to the same kinds of regulations as above. Be careful what you wish for, you might get it. A much stronger claim can be made, I think, that crypto is a form of language or speech, clearly protected by the First Amendment. Thus, writing one's diary in an encrypted form (a common practice in colonial days, interestingly) is a form of language one uses. Thus, "Congress shall make no law..." about this speech or writing. That two people choose to converse in ROT-13 or in RSA or in their own private code is not something the government is authorized to interfere with. Ikewiselay, itingwray inlay igpay atinlay islay otectedpray. --Imtay Aymay Boycott espionage-enabled software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- 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: 2^756839 - 1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."