Kyllo: Taking the 5th on the 4th

[Tim May]

At 11:09 AM -0700 7/3/01, Steve Schear wrote:
>Although the ruling only appears to apply to one's home it does 
>raise questions whether citizens may have the right to prevent their 
>observation while in public.  After all one is permitted tinted 
>windows on autos.

Not in many places. At least here in California, and probably in many 
other states, there are restrictions on which windows may be tinted, 
and by how much.


Despite certain city/county ordinances why not masks or helmets with 
tinted faceplates.

My motorcycle helmet has a tinted faceplate. Very darkly tinted, in 
fact. (So dark that the vehicle code requires it be removed at night 
and replaced by a clear plate, or lifted up.)

The whole issue of "going masked" is a murky one, legally. We have 
had many discussions of this over the years. Women wearing veils, men 
wearing beards, sunglasses, Halloween or other party masks, etc.

I believe that a major constitutional challenge to "going masked for 
the purpose of going masked" laws would, by a court faithful to the 
U.S.C. and the Founders, be struck down. The need of a traffic cop to 
check for a valid driver's license, for example, can be met in much 
less restrictive ways than throwing someone in prison for wearing a 
wig which some judge deems to be a "disguise."


(Not that there are many, if any, people sitting in prison today for 
the crime of "going masked for the purpose of going masked." Time to 
take the laws off the books, though, lest they be applied to 
cyberspace or to public camera countermeasures, as we are discussing 
here.)

--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