Banned Research and Raids on "Secret Labs"

[Tim May]

At 10:00 AM -0700 7/1/01, Tim May wrote:
><x-flowed>Here's an item about the Feds banning certain types of biological
>research. More evidence that government is flexing its muscles to
>interfere in research it has decided is not acceptable...or that it
>is not controlling for its own purposes. I wonder what Thomas
>Jefferson, a noted amateur scientist, would have thought of the
>federal government raiding labs and subpoening records when it
>decided it wanted to? His cryptography research, for example? So much
>for the real spirit of the First and Fourth, amongst others.

I discussed several different issues related tot his raid/ban/UFO cult/etc.

To separate some of the issues:

1. The basic issue of the constitutionality in these united States of 
"bans" on research, qua research. Whether the research is about 
cloning or cryptography or nuclear science, the issue of whether 
government has the constitutional authority to _ban_ research (as 
opposed to, say, exploding nuclear weapons or manufacturing nerve 
agents) is a basic one.

1A: Congress surely has the authority to bar the use of government 
funding in human cloning. The issue above is not about government 
funding, but whether they may suppress scientific research by 
individuals, universities, corporations, and other non-federally 
funded entities.

2. The issue of how "raids" and "subpoenas" and "visits" and 
"crackdowns" occur. This is related to the issue of warrants and 
subpoenas being increasingly easy to obtain, with many judges 
pre-signing stacks of warrants/orders to be used as LEAs see fit. In 
the case of this "secret lab" being "visited." there are Fourth 
Amendment and trespassing issues.

2A: Trespassing on corporate property has long been the norm for 
regulatory agents, without them seeking specific court approval. OSHA 
visits corporations (and even private institutions) to check on the 
height of seat chairs and the placement of safety showers. Fire 
marshals check for fire extinguishers and safety posters. Perhaps 
worst of all, IMO, "Child Protective Services" has the apparent 
right, they claim, to show up at a house or apartment and demand to 
inspect the premises. These are all cases where the letter of the 
Fourth Amendment is certainly not being followed, and the spirit is 
being obliterated. There is very little difference between what the 
Founders were concerned about, that the King's Men would randomly 
enter homes looking for seditious materials and troublemakers, and 
the current situations where the new instances of the King's Men can 
enter homes, corporations, and other private properties to look for 
politically incorrect materials.

2B: Copyright and anti-piracy is a related issue. Surprise audits of 
corporations, for example. (Hey, if I _suspect_ my neighbor has 
illegally copied a tape I lent him just for viewing, can I demand to 
inspect his house?)

3. The "chilling effect" issue. These raids and "timeouts" (their 
language) are used to harass and slow down researchers and other 
politically incorrect persons. The language is telling: "send a 
message," "signal our unhappiness," "order a timeout," "a shot across 
the bow," etc.  These raids and subpoenas and "visits" are designed 
to intimidate in an extra-constitutional way. The Founders would see 
this as another case of the King's Men throwing their weight around.

(We have seen this in crypto, where labs get "visits" by Men in Black 
from the Office of Export Control, the NSA, etc. We see fewer 
reports, at least reported here, of researchers being warned that 
their research could land them in trouble, but it probably still 
happens. )

4. Lastly, the science and pseudoscience issue. This UFO cult was 
visited/raided on the basis of bizarre claims about their desire to 
clone a dead baby, with some weird mix-in cult beliefs. Where's the 
scientific credibility that they have the means and knowledge to do a 
real clone?

All of these issues are part of the slippery slope of banning 
research. We are seeing a move toward an era of Forbidden Knowledge. 
It started with some limited areas of military research and extended 
into cryptography in the 60s and 70s (maybe some classifications 
before the 60s, too). Now it is being extended into biology.

Sen. Feinstein wants "bomb-making instructions" banned. Sen. 
Lieberman has his own list of things he wants banned.

My reading of the U.S. Constitution says that government may not ban 
information or limit the reading (research, thinking) activities of 
the people.

And it says the powers of law enforcement are not to be used outside 
of legitimate court-ordered actions, with public trials and juries of 
one's peers. Using law enforcement to "send messages" and "order 
timeouts" and "fire a shot across the bow" is just not part of our 
judicial or legislative system.

But since the Supreme Court has not even dared to revisit the Second 
Amendment limitations (of Miller), they are unlikely to face up to 
this slippery slope of increasing Thought Police activities.

--Tim May


-- 
Timothy C. May         tcmay at got.net        Corralitos, California
Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon
Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go
Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns