Re: "Structuring" of Communications a Felony?
At 10:57 PM -0800 12/28/96, Lucky Green wrote:
IMHO, this closes the door on the foreign contracting loophole used by C2 and others. It is now illegal for US persons to finance or contract out overseas crypto development, since doing so will obviously assist in proliferation. While not unexpected (I offered a bet on Cypherpunks that this would happen. Nobody took the bet.), this provision sets a dangerous precedence. The technical assistance prohibitions of the past have been transformed into general prohibitions against "financing, contracting, service, support, transportation, freight forwarding, or employment".
Again, IANAL.
Nor am I, but I have a "prediction" to make in the spirit of Lucky's types of predictions of doom.
I predict that we will see within two years a law making it illegal to "structure communications" with the intent to avoid traceability, accountability, etc.
This would be along the lines of the laws making it illegal to "structure" financial transactions with the (apparent) intent to avoid or evade certain laws about reporting of income, reporting of transactions, etc.
[snip]
How long before the U.S. Code declares "attempting to obscure or hide the origin of a communication" to be a felony? That would rule out orninary mail without return adresses, but I think there are ample signs we're already moving toward this situation (packages that could be bombs putatively require ID, talk of the Postal Service handling the citizen-unit authentication/signature system, etc.).
[snip]
You heard it here.
--Tim May
Tim, I think that this is highly unlikely. The SC has ruled repeatedly that anonymous speech is a foundation of American politics (e.g., the Federalist Papers). Care to make this prediction a bet? -- Steve
At 1:35 PM -0800 12/29/96, Steve Schear wrote:
Tim, I think that this is highly unlikely. The SC has ruled repeatedly that anonymous speech is a foundation of American politics (e.g., the Federalist Papers).
Care to make this prediction a bet?
Unlike Sandy, I'm not a great believer in multi-year bets as an epistemological tool.... As to the "anonymous speech" rulings, I mainly know of the 1956 Georgia case, in which the Supremes struck down a law requiring that leaflets handed out have a name attached. I don't know of more recent rulings, especially ones related to the Internet. (Why this is important is that the Supreme Court has often differentiated between types of speech. For example, ask a liquor or tobacco company if it has "freedom of speech." Ask those who put labels on their products if they have freedom of speech--the Federal Trade Commission, Food and Drug Administration, etc., declare what may not be said, what must be said, etc. First Amendment scholars are of course well aware that the First is not treated as an absolute.) If origin-labelling is unconstitutional, as Steve claims, then on what basis can the U.S. Postal Service require identification for packages over one pound? Surely what is inside the package may be considered "speech" (by those interested in pushing the point). And there are many other situations where anonymity is no longer allowed, where once it was. The gambling example Brian Davis brought up is an example: for the purposes of tax collection, regulation of gambling, etc., winners of nontrivial amounts must identify themselves. (This example shows that various governmental practices--tax collection, regulation of substances, regulation of markets, etc.--can be used to trump what were once considered to be basic freedoms...the freedom to spend money anonymously, the freedom to travel anonymously, the freedom to not have tax collectors enter one's house and inspect one's papers, and so on, are no longer considered to be freedoms.) As to how such regulations about origin-labeling might develop, here are several points: 1. A sharp increase in spamming, mass mailing, threatening letters, etc....sort of like the "denial of service" and spamming/looping attacks seen here on Cypherpunks, and being seen widely on the Net. This will increase pressure to "do something about it." A Senator Exon type person will introduce legislation to require e-mail be labelled. 2. As the Four Horsemen ride, as death threats are delivered anonymously (as has already happened), further calls will be made for requiring I.D. of packets. At the least, remailer services will be required to "escrow" the identities of senders. (The Church of Scientology is a situation to consider...they were able to force Julf to reveal a pseudonym-true name mapping, and I expect more such cases...Europe will probably evolve quickly to a system where pseudonyms will be permitted, providing an "identity escrow" data base is inspectable by law enforcement and interested parties in legal cases.) Such identity escrow in remailer networks would of course put an end to chaining of remailers. 3. Civil libertarians will wail and will cite the 1956 Supreme Court case about leafletting. Lawyers on the other side will point out that all that is being affected is _mail_, not anonymous speech in public fora (though restrictions on that may be tried, too). That is, that the _content_ of a package, a la the Postal Service I.D. situation, is not at issue, only the valid identification of point of origin. 4. A couple of court rulings could devastate remailers. For example, holding remailers liable, criminally and civilly, for the content of messages they deliver. Without an origin address, the remailer could be assumed to have originated the message. (This has long been an issue, implicit in my "everyone a remailer" thesis of a few years back. Anyone could send any message, and simply claim "I didn't write it...I'm just a remailer.") In closing, I think the Supreme Court will, when it eventually agrees to hear a relevant case, will differentiate between protected anonymous speech in public forums and the labelling of sealed packages, sealed letters, and sealed e-mail. They will argue along the lines of saying that the labelling law is for the protection of society and not for tracking down dissidents. The effect will of course be the same, but this will be the fig leaf which allows them to uphold such laws. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I 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: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
Another point about "anonymous speech" and its legal protections (a la the 1956 Georgia leafletting case), consider a similar "basic right": the right to move freely and anonymously. Well, it turns out that in the U.S. this right is thwarted by income tax laws. Not to mention driver's license laws, Social Security laws, etc. (Yes, as Duncan and others are fond of pointing out, there are ways to avoid some of these laws. I won't recap them here. But these are often difficult to bypass, at least for those not constantly watching every action they take, and may be felonies in some cases. Loompanics and Paladin sell various books on creating new identities, etc.) For example, while citizen-units in the United States are free to move to new locales without permission and without registration, unlike in some countries, the tax collector expects a valid home (or at least mailing) address on tax returns. (Use of a tax preparer is one workaround, though the tax preparer probably is required by some law or another to know the "true domicile" of a client...left as an exercise as to whether this is ever enforced.) My point is not to attack the notion of taxation, but to note that tax collection often involves by necessity (for our current approach) strong invasions of privacy...no different from when the King's Tax Collector roamed around one's farm and household looking for things to tax. Harry Browne makes this point eloquently in his new book, "Why Government Doesn't Work." I believe the various rumblings about regulation of digital cash and electronic mail will turn out to be enacted with this kind of justification. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I 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: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Sun, 29 Dec 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
Unlike Sandy, I'm not a great believer in multi-year bets as an epistemological tool....
Tim has misstated my belief. I do think that short- or long-term bets fulfill a purpose, but it is not an epistemological one. (Tim, are you thinking of Robin or Nick?) The purpose it serves is to make pontificators more cautious in the pontifications. It's easy to gas on about subjects in which you have no economic stake; we all do that at times. The possiblity of financial loss or reward, however, encourages temperance. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
At 5:07 PM -0800 12/29/96, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
On Sun, 29 Dec 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
Unlike Sandy, I'm not a great believer in multi-year bets as an epistemological tool....
Tim has misstated my belief. I do think that short- or long-term bets fulfill a purpose, but it is not an epistemological one. (Tim, are you thinking of Robin or Nick?) The purpose it serves is to make pontificators more cautious in the pontifications. It's easy to gas on about subjects in which you have no economic stake; we all do that at times. The possiblity of financial loss or reward, however, encourages temperance.
Robin and Nick have even more faith in bets as a tool, but Sandy has, at least on our list, been more of a user of such bets. My problem has always been that they rarely work...in fact, of the last N such bets which were offered (e.g., by Sandy) I can't recall a single one which was ever even accepted, let alone which was settled. (And I recall "bets" offered to Phill Hallam-Baker, Dimitri Vulis, etc.) So, the thesis that pontifications are lessened is wiped out by the fact that no such bets have ever, in my memory, been accepted. If anything, those challenged to "put their money where their mouth is" almost uniformly write _more_, not less. While I accept the basic prinicple (and my income depends to a large extent on my investments, which is surely an example of putting my money where my mouth is, to a large extent), I question the usefullness in forums like ours. For obvious reasons. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I 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: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Sun, 29 Dec 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
Robin and Nick have even more faith in bets as a tool, but Sandy has, at least on our list, been more of a user of such bets.
My problem has always been that they rarely work...in fact, of the last N such bets which were offered (e.g., by Sandy) I can't recall a single one which was ever even accepted, let alone which was settled. (And I recall "bets" offered to Phill Hallam-Baker, Dimitri Vulis, etc.)
Tim's error is assuming that the offer of the bet did not "work" merely because the bet was not taken. All the bets I offered achieved effects I intended. (Exercise for the student, and all that.) S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Sun, 29 Dec 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
At 1:35 PM -0800 12/29/96, Steve Schear wrote:
... snip ...
As to the "anonymous speech" rulings, I mainly know of the 1956 Georgia case, in which the Supremes struck down a law requiring that leaflets handed out have a name attached. I don't know of more recent rulings, especially ones related to the Internet.
(Why this is important is that the Supreme Court has often differentiated between types of speech. For example, ask a liquor or tobacco company if it has "freedom of speech." Ask those who put labels on their products if they have freedom of speech--the Federal Trade Commission, Food and Drug Administration, etc., declare what may not be said, what must be said, etc. First Amendment scholars are of course well aware that the First is not treated as an absolute.)
If origin-labelling is unconstitutional, as Steve claims, then on what basis can the U.S. Postal Service require identification for packages over one pound? Surely what is inside the package may be considered "speech" (by those interested in pushing the point).
Unless the regulations apply to UPS, FED-EX etc., I don't see how the two situations are comparable. The government refusing to deliver packages (via the USPS) unless certain conditions are met is not the same as saying no one may deliver unless those conditions are met. Now, passing email from its source, through several remailers and to its destination does not involve any government agency. The government may still try to control it, but they can't justify it by analogy to labeling of normal mail (which they are involved in delivering).
... snip ...
As to how such regulations about origin-labeling might develop, here are several points:
... snip ...
3. Civil libertarians will wail and will cite the 1956 Supreme Court case about leafletting. Lawyers on the other side will point out that all that is being affected is _mail_, not anonymous speech in public fora (though restrictions on that may be tried, too). That is, that the _content_ of a package, a la the Postal Service I.D. situation, is not at issue, only the valid identification of point of origin.
And the civil libertarians ought to reply that email is like _mail_ in name only.
... more snip ....
--Tim May
Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I 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: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
- --------------------
Scott V. McGuire
As to the "anonymous speech" rulings, I mainly know of the 1956 Georgia case, in which the Supremes struck down a law requiring that leaflets handed out have a name attached. I don't know of more recent rulings, especially ones related to the Internet.
(Why this is important is that the Supreme Court has often differentiated between types of speech. For example, ask a liquor or tobacco company if it has "freedom of speech." Ask those who put labels on their products if they have freedom of speech--the Federal Trade Commission, Food and Drug Administration, etc., declare what may not be said, what must be said, etc. First Amendment scholars are of course well aware that the First is not treated as an absolute.) =snip=
you might want to check out ... McINTYRE, executor of ESTATE OF McINTYRE, DECEASED v. OHIO ELECTIONS COMMISSION certiorari to the supreme court of ohio No. 93-986. Argued October 12, 1994-Decided April 19, 1995 which can be found at ftp://ftp.cwru.edu/hermes/ascii/93-986.ZS.filt --- syllabus ftp://ftp.cwru.edu/hermes/ascii/93-986.ZO.filt --- opinion ftp://ftp.cwru.edu/hermes/ascii/93-986.ZC.filt --- concurring ftp://ftp.cwru.edu/hermes/ascii/93-986.ZC1.filt --- concurring ftp://ftp.cwru.edu/hermes/ascii/93-986.ZD.filt --- dissenting a snippet from the synopsis... After petitioner's decedent distributed leaflets purporting to express the views of ``CONCERNED PARENTS AND TAX PAYERS'' oppos- ing a proposed school tax levy, she was fined by respondent for violating 3599.09(A) of the Ohio Code, which prohibits the distribu- tion of campaign literature that does not contain the name and address of the person or campaign official issuing the literature. The Court of Common Pleas reversed, but the Ohio Court of Ap- peals reinstated the fine. In affirming, the State Supreme Court held that the burdens 3599.09(A) imposed on voters' First Amend- ment rights were ``reasonable'' and ``nondiscriminatory'' and therefore valid. Declaring that 3599.09(A) is intended to identify persons who distribute campaign materials containing fraud, libel, or false advertising and to provide voters with a mechanism for evaluating such materials, the court distinguished Talley v. California, 362 U. S. 60, in which this Court invalidated an ordinance prohibiting all anonymous leafletting. ------------------------ Name: amp E-mail: amp@pobox.com Date: 12/30/96 Time: 05:11:23 Visit http://www.public-action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum EARTH FIRST! We'll strip mine the other planets later. ------------------------
amp@pobox.com wrote:
As to the "anonymous speech" rulings, I mainly know of the 1956 Georgia case, in which the Supremes struck down a law requiring that leaflets handed out have a name attached. I don't know of more recent rulings, especially ones related to the Internet. (Why this is important is that the Supreme Court has often differentiated between types of speech. For example, ask a liquor or tobacco company if it has "freedom of speech." Ask those who put labels on their products if they have freedom of speech--the Federal Trade Commission, Food and Drug Administration, etc., declare what may not be said, what must be said, etc. First Amendment scholars are of course well aware that the First is not treated as an absolute.)
So how would the courts prosecute if me and (n) number of other persons distribute separate pieces of a "binary", i.e., encrypted or otherwise? There has been some prior discussion here of splitting files in creative ways then sending the pieces through multiple channels (and at different times?).... Would the courts then insist that every data transmission I ever make would have to be proved to be meaningful (viewable) text, or in the case of a binary, have a court-approved checksum? Is there a presumption that only NSA will be able to forge the checksums, to get around this problem (for themselves)?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In
So how would the courts prosecute if me and (n) number of other persons distribute separate pieces of a "binary", i.e., encrypted or otherwise?
You could always try it out, and find out :-) Take a look at: http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/export/ several people have used this .sig in the past. (Returns you the next 3 lines of uuencoded PGP.EXE, sample below). Perhaps future structuring of information regs will add new meaning to this. Adam -- A protest of the unconsitutional ITAR, a chunk of PGP.EXE: ------------------- PGP.ZIP part [001/713] ------------------ M4$L#!!0````(`">9ZQX3(*,_DG8!`-JF`P`'````4$=0+D581>S;=UQ3U__X M\9M!$E8,TT@PJ$10$1=*41%WW`KX$=Q[M5KK`&R%(HH+(T.M"S>NME8K=31N M:A$[K+5(K:O5BE405ZE:1"3?UTW`:K_]\/G\?O_^?CX>3^_-S;GGO,^\`^@W ------------------------------------------------------------- for next chunk to export --> http://dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/export/
participants (8)
-
Adam Back -
amp＠pobox.com -
Attila T. Hun -
azur＠netcom.com -
Dale Thorn -
Sandy Sandfort -
Scott V. McGuire -
Timothy C. May