I'm not a lawyer, but I am interested in the various ramifications--and the constitutionality--of recent "sweeping contracts" between vendors, lawmakers, consumers, etc. Two recent example: 1. The "tobacco agreement." Supposedly a deal involving the transfer of $360 billion from some number of tobacco companies in exchange for dropping of liability suits, immunity from future claims, voluntary restrictions (!) on advertising, etc. (And the "etc." is especially complicated in this huge case.) 2. The "voluntary ratings" agreement being announced today by Al Gore and some of the television networks. (Earlier "voluntary agreements" were implemented, but, according to supporters of censorship, "failed." Hence the new push for newer voluntary restrictions.) The issue, it seems to me, is that ordinary concepts of illegality and civil liability are being swept aside in favor of these huge "deals" to reduce liability in exchange for various actions. Well, who is bound by these deals? If "Tim's Tobacco Company" starts up next year, after this deal is "signed," is his company bound by this deal? If Tim the Smoker develops lung cancer, is he blocked from suing? (Caveat: My personal and libertarian view is that lawsuits against cigarette companies are wrong and should not be supported in a free society. And lawsuits by various states to "recover health care costs" are especially bogus. By this logic, McDonald's could be sued by California because California paid out more health care benefits to meat-eaters than it did to vegetarians. Utterly bogus.) Anyway, the free speech aspects of these deals are also worrisome. The "voluntary restrictions" on advertising, for example. Would the aforementioned "Tim's Tobacco Company," not a party to this Grand Deal, be somehow bound by a deal wherein it could not sponsor sporting events? Or advertise? Or even speak out against the deal? Imagine the implications for cryptography, using the logic of these kinds of deals: "The voluntary agreement reached between the cryptography industry and Washington calls for companies to voluntarily limit key sizes to 64 bits unless a key recovery scheme is used. And Washington agrees to drop RICO charges against PGP Inc. and RSA Data Security Inc. in return. Book publishers, who became part of the negotiations last summer, have agreed to limit the information published in books in exchange for relaxations on the export requirements for computer media. " Far fetched? Perhaps. But note the similarities to these other "collective contracts." And in many ways the Telephony Act, aka CALEA (Communications Act for Law Enforcement Access), was just such a deal. When the various telecom companies essentially said "we can live with this bill," they were tacitly committing themselves to just such a collective contract. (What happens when a new telecom company starts up and finds that it has been "bound" to provide wiretap points into its switches?) It seems to me that these contracts are going to collapse completely when the Supreme Court points out that they bind nonparticipants to terms which limit their constitutionally protected rights. (Quibblers can claim that "corporations have no constitutional rights," but the publishing companies which publish newspapers would take exception to this. And so on. There are many cases where corporations are enjoying the fruits of the Constitution. As it should be.) These huge mega-deals are a crummy way to interpret the U.S. Constitution. I fear the "Grand Compromise" deal that the telecom and crypto companies are being drawn into. --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."