Bombings, Surveillance, and Free Societies
* To: cypherpunks@toad.com * Subject: Bombings, Surveillance, and Free Societies * From: tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May) * Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 12:51:40 -0800 * Sender: owner-cypherpunks@toad.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The recent bombings and similar events in public places in Israel (Hamas), England (IRA), Japan (subway gas attack), and the U.S. (Oklahoma City) are triggering calls for increased communications surveillance. Often the first bombing is insufficient to trigger increased steps...but later events push states to take stronger steps. (In the U.S., for example, the OKC bombing was headline news for more than a week, but resulted in no lasting changes affecting most of us, despite the hysteria about the need to outlaw "militias" and "white supremacist" groups. A second or third such bombing would likely produce new legislation of a serious sort. This is the thrust of my article.) Revolutionary theory says of course that this increased clampdown is a desired effect of terrorist bombings and attacks. Fear and doubt. Revolutionary ends rarely happen by slow, incremental movement. Hundreds of examples, from the original "bomb-throwing anarchists" to the modern mix of terrorist bands. The Red Brigade in Italy sought a fascist crackdown, and the "strategy of tension" is common. (And even revolutionists of crypto anarchist persuasion often think laws like the CDA are good in the long run, by undermining respect for authority and triggering more extreme reactions....) CNN is reporting that U.S. intelligence agencies will share technology for communications intercepts with the Israelis (more so than they already have been doing. Maybe the "U.S.S. Liberty" will be anchored off of Haifa on a permanent basis. The implications for cryptography? -- expect increased support for a "New World Order" to restrict non-governmental access to strong crypto (via key escrow measures) -- expect the various laws about "talking about explosives on the Net" to be used to clamp down on various fringe groups -- expect "national security" to become a bigger part of the political debate -- expect more and bigger bombings, as the groups thinking about bombings see how productive they are in accomplishing policy goals (such as ending peace talks, triggering police state actions, etc.) The inescapable fact is that free societies have numerous "soft targets" than cannot be defended against such bombing attacks. Various public places are "Schelling points" for attacks: crowded streets in Bogota, Tel Aviv, New York, London, Paris. Ditto for subways, buses, government buildings, sports arenas, etc. (The 99+% of us who are not in these areas at any given time are pretty safe, actually.) I predict that it will take about 5 more major bombings in European and American cities to trigger substantive changes in laws. If we look at how easily the Communiations Decency Act (and the Wiretap Act, and similar laws) sailed through Congress, I foresee serious terrorist activity as triggering far-reaching restrictions on communications privacy, on non-governmental use of encryption, and on what may be talked about openly on the Net. (Yes, I'm aware that there's a thing called the "First Amendment," lest you lawyers point out to me that such prior restraints will never fly. Well, how has the First Amendment stopped the government from restricting what I can say about medicine, what abortion advice I can give, the "dirty words" I choose to use, the supposedly libelous and slanderous things I can say, etc.? Granted, these are not cases of prior restraint, but of actions taken after the fact, via criminal and civil actions. Not much difference so far as I can see.) Personally, while I feel sorry for the dead in Israel, I think anyone who moves to a small desert state surrounded on all sides by Arabs who want their land back is asking for trouble. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" 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." ------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Tim May wrote:
lawyers point out to me that such prior restraints will never fly. Well, how has the First Amendment stopped the government from restricting what I can say about medicine, what abortion advice I can give, the "dirty words" I choose to use, the supposedly libelous and slanderous things I can say, etc.? Granted, these are not cases of prior restraint, but of actions taken after the fact, via criminal and civil actions. Not much difference so far as I can see.)
Lotta differences here which I know you're aware of, but don't seem to choose to remember at the moment. In the first place, prior restraint does have its after-the-fact-restraint analog in the "chilling effect" doctrine--not it's not absolute, as prior restraint law almost is, but it usually goes to accomplish the same purpose. Obscenity is not protected speech, so the 1A's irrelevant there, as far as the courts go and as far as your argument goes, because you're arguing about what the law might do. The same is true of libel and slander, if you can find any such thing under today's prevailing 1a jurisprudence. They're pretty few and far between torts in the last thirty years. Your examples about drugs and abortion are not examles of prohibited speech but of compelled speech, which is another subject altogether, though one which I would agree has its constitutional issues as well, but not the ones you have in mind above: Unless you advocate a right to commit fraud under the First Amendment, which I have not previously heard you do. There will be a repressive response by some--Trent Lott is already trashing civil liberties, I shit you not, as of today, as having to take a second place to security needs in ths "war"--but the thing to do is resist this kind of chuck-headed thinking with the First Amendment. And the Fifth, and the Fourth. They usually work, so give them a chance first. MacN
participants (2)
-
Mac Norton
-
Tim May