IP: Wanna make biological weapons and take out cities? $10. (fwd)

[Declan McCullagh]

I have little interest in debating with someone who believes in 
criminalizing the publication and distribution (and also, apparently, the 
purchasing) of scientific and technical information.

One might as well debate the merits of concealed carry .40 caliber vs. 9mm 
handguns with a Handgun Control lobbyist.

-Declan


At 12:44 PM 11/22/2001 -0600, gep2 at terabites.com wrote:


>On Thu, 22 Nov 2001, Declan McCullagh <declan at well.com> wrote:
> >Nobody is saying that free expression includes inciting a riot or
> >soliciting murder. But it does generally include the right to write a book
> >(and read it) without being targeted by the government.
>
>MY translation of what YOU are saying is that when a student learning to 
>fly a
>commercial Boeing airliner tells his flight instructor that he doesn't 
>need to
>learn how to take off or land, but only how to fly it in the air, that we 
>ought
>to say (the flight instructor, and society in general) "Oh, that's cool, I
>guess," and not report it as suspicious.
>
>Sorry, I don't agree.
>
> >What you wrote that raised eyebrows was this:
>
> >>I sure hope that the government is investigating and following each and 
> every
> >>person who buys a copy of this book... I wonder if there's a way to force
> >>Tobiason to foot the bill for that security?
>
> >There are plenty of books I can think of -- almost all of the Loompanics
> >catalog -- that would fret some government official. David Burnham's books
> >on the IRS and DOJ abuses of power are another.
>
>There's a huge difference between a book that blows the whistle on government
>misdoings and abuses versus a book that gives a detailed recipe on how some
>disgruntled lunatic with $10 in their pocket can kill tens of thousands, 
>maybe
>even millions, of other people "from your basement, in your spare time".
>
>ESPECIALLY when that book discusses (and presumably encourages) the 
>distribution
>of anthrax and other home-cultured lethal pathogens by letters in the 
>mail, and
>in light of recent events bearing a striking similarity to that, I think it's
>obvious that people who bought this guy's book or CD are certainly at least
>among the list of prime suspects.  (And I'd think that it simply makes 
>sense to
>investigate, and monitor the activities of the rest of the purchasers to 
>try to
>uncover if they're just "curious" as an academically interesting subject, 
>or to
>see if they have a more sinister purpose.)
>
>Obviously we as a nation were largely blindsided by the September 11th 
>disaster,
>and we've been roundly criticized due to the obvious failure of 
>intelligence to
>see this coming and head it off somehow.  While we can't ALWAYS achieve that,
>it's clear that we need to do better in that area.
>
>There's plenty of other things that "ordinary" folk simply don't have much 
>need
>to buy and own.  [very-]Large-denomination currency, perhaps.  Nuclear 
>weapons.
>  High explosives and blasting caps.  Shoulder-launced antiaircraft 
> missiles.
>I'm sure you can think of others.  I'd put anthrax and other biological or
>chemical weapons into that category, too.  I'd hope that anyone buying (or
>attempting to buy) such stuff would at least slightly raise an eyebrow on the
>part of SOMEONE charged with helping to maintain a society that's safe to 
>live
>in.  It's clearly NOT enough to only monitor such things on the part of 
>madmen
>like Saddam Hussein... clearly, we have crazy people right here in the United
>States, too.  They're no less in need of at least some oversight to make sure
>that they don't go off the deep end and endanger as much as an entire city 
>(or
>possibly even worse).
>
> >But I hardly think it's
> >consistent with the First Amendment to investigate the people who buy them,
> >or make the authors pay "protection money" for the privilege of publishing.
>
>It's hardly reasonable for taxpayers as a whole to have to pay the high 
>costs of
>security that are created by an irresponsible individual who is creating a 
>very
>dangerous situation just to earn a few fistfulls of dollars (and to quite
>purposefully create that danger).  When someone creates a highly dangerous
>condition that results in heavy costs to someone else (whether to correct the
>problem, or even to protect themselves against the possible problem) then 
>courts
>have traditionally found that the damaged party has a civil claim against the
>person creating that hazard.
>
>Again, the First Amendment has its limits.  If some organization were to 
>publish
>a "you can build it at home in your spare time" cookbook recipe of how to 
>create
>an innovative sort of nuclear weapon capable of destroying a large city, I'd
>expect for the government to step in and prevent its publication and sale...
>purely as a matter of national security.  Now THERE, it's true that getting
>"enough" nuclear fuel is nontrivial, but in the case of biological (and even
>some chemical) weapons, the potential for actual (and not just imagined)
>mischief is far greater, and the harm that could be done is far too high to
>dismiss as being simply hypothetical until after the fact.
>
>The idea that this nitwit is "only just" publishing this kind of material and
>not HIMSELF committing the resulting crimes (and it could WELL be that the
>anthrax attacks already seen here are the work of one or more of his 
>customers)
>and that he therefore should be allowed to continue these sales unimpeded and
>unmonitored is rather like saying that Osama bin Laden is only running 
>terrorism
>training camps, producing snazzy recruitment videos, publishing terrorism
>handbooks and providing other logistical support but that nothing he's 
>done has
>actually CAUSED anybody to go out and commit these horrible atrocities.
>
>Again, sorry, I don't agree.
>
>Just as very few Americans (in fact I suspect this is true for most of the
>world) will shed great tears when ObL is captured or killed, I think that 
>few of
>them will be very upset when this guy selling "murder millions of your fellow
>citizens" cookbooks is eliminated.
>
> >Then you wrote in the message below:
>
> >>How many sets of these "terrorism cookbooks" do you let fall
> >>into the hands of psychotics?  We already don't sell guns to convicted
> >>felons...
> >>  gee, that sounds to me like "prior restraint"... or do you think THAT's
> >> wrong,
> >>too? There are some things that are so terrible that you simply can't 
> wait to
> >>prosecute or criminalize until AFTER the fact of their happening.
>
> >My translation of that is "we must require background checks on people who
> >buy books, newspapers, or magazines" that some FBI officials dislike.
>
>No.  (That's not a very good translation!  In fact it's OUTRAGEOUSLY poor.)
>
>It's not an issue of "dislike".  Political dissent MUST be allowed.  Even 
>civil
>disobedience is probably a legitimate form of protest.  Putting (quite
>literally) the lives of perhaps even MILLIONS of Americans at serious risk of
>being murdered by some disgruntled sociopath is in a totally different 
>category
>altogether.
>
> >(I look forward to seeing how you'll extend this to the Internet. 
> AdultCheck,
> >anyone?
>
>Sexuality and "illicit" orgasms are a victimless crime.  I don't think 
>that the
>government should be in the business of prosecuting "crimes" where there 
>are no
>(and aren't likely to be any, either) victims.  The government should not 
>be in
>the morality business.
>
> >How about posts on the cypherpunks list or other fora that include
> >more scientific or technical information than you feel comfortable with?)
>
>Depends on the nature of the information.  Ultimately, it will probably 
>require
>a judge or jury or some such to make the call.  Yeah, that's a slippery 
>slope.
>Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is that it's a dangerous time that 
>we find
>ourselves in since September 11th.  The sentiment of the public is that we 
>have
>to do more to ensure the safety of our homes and lives, even if the result is
>the loss of some of our once-cherished personal freedoms.  We can only 
>hope that
>the requisite level of safety can be achieved with minimum harm to our 
>freedoms.
>
>I think it's ironic (and fairly stupid) that some of those who are pissing 
>and
>moaning the most about the government having abused them are going to be 
>those
>doing the most to INCREASE the degree and probability of government
>oppressiveness.  :-(  That's just STUPID, although nobody accused these 
>guys of
>being smart.
>
> >My translation of your last sentence is "we must criminalize the
> >publication of certain technical or scientific information just because
> >some bad people may get their hands on it."
>
>Again, a very poor translation.
>
>First, I didn't say that "publication of...information" was one of those 
>"some
>things [that are] just so terrible...".
>
>Discovery of (for example) a suitcase-sized nuclear weapon in some lunatic's
>apartment in Manhattan would be one of those things where I think one could
>reasonably argue that they ought to be locked up and the key thrown away... I
>don't think we should wait until the bomb were exploded to consider the 
>danger
>[or act] unacceptable.
>
>Discovery of a fermenting vat and a breeding quantity of live anthrax 
>bacteria
>(or smallpox, for that matter, or sarin gas, or other chemical or biological
>weapons) in someone's garage is probably another one of those cases where 
>mere
>POSSESSION ought to be enough to result in criminal prosecution and
>incarceration.
>
>And this isn't really a new bit of legislation... mere possession of
>distribution-sized quantities of crack is already illegal, simply because one
>can only presume that the INTENTION is there to distribute it.  (Likewise,
>bringing a boatload of marijuana into a US port under cover of darkness is
>illegal, because it's safe enough to presume that it's not because they 
>want to
>build a bonfire on the beach with it...)
>
>A better example of the type of thing Declan is talking about would be the
>possession of something that is INFORMATION ALONE (such as certain types of
>pornographic material, perhaps) where there is no victim (e.g. drawings or
>computer-generated images, where one can't even make the farfetched argument
>about the model having been abused or exploited).  I think that it's 
>absurd for
>the government to try to legislate morality, especially when it's
>religious-based issues like personal sexuality.
>
>It's especially outrageous when the government attempts to criminalize 
>UNWITTING
>AND UNKNOWN possession.  Let's say, for example, that you buy a copy of the
>Sunday New York Times from a vending machine on the sidewalk.  Unknown to 
>you, a
>prior customer at the same newspaper vending machine slipped a pornographic
>image of a child into the Real Estate section (which you never open or 
>read) of
>the copy you purchased.  Later that evening, law enforcement agents enter 
>your
>home with a search warrant, find the pornographic image hidden in your
>newspaper, and cart you off to jail for "possession".
>
>Alternatively, you're prowling around the Net and tell your newsreader 
>software
>to download several thousand pictures from a busy newsgroup.  You look at 
>some
>of them the next morning, but don't view them all.  Unknown to you, one of 
>the
>images you inadvertently downloaded was an offtopic pornographic image of a
>child posted to that newgroup by an obnoxious spammer.  Theoretically, you're
>now a felon and sex offender because you are in possession of an image you're
>not allowed to have, even if you have no idea whatsoever that you have it.
>
>Anyhow, I think THAT IS WRONG.  (See, I'm really a strong civil 
>libertarian...)
>
> >Comparing background checks for
> >gun purchasers (in an approving way) to background checks to books is just
> >nutty.
>
>I'm perhaps less concerned about "background checks" before the sale of
>terrorism training manuals (*and the like*) than I am with just trying to 
>figure
>out whether the persons buying stuff like that are truly just curious, or if
>they constitute a clear and present danger to the citizens of the country.
>
>It created something of an outrage when the FBI admitted during the 
>government
>hearings that (even several weeks after the anthrax attacks) they had no clue
>about how many, or which, labs in the USA had access to and were working with
>anthrax.  I'd think that, at the very least, when they're investigating this
>particular issue they'd look at this guy's customers as among the list of 
>prime
>suspects (and in order to do that, they need some kind of audit trail.)
>
> >Now do you see why your post is so at odds with the principles of a free
> >society? If not, I'm not sure you're educable on this issue.
>
>Clearly we're going to lose some of our freedoms.  :-(((  I just hope that 
>those
>losses can be minimized.  Meanwhile, it's bastards like this guy selling 
>these
>terrorism training manuals who are ultimately more part of the problem 
>than they
>are part of the solution.
>
>Gordon Peterson                  http://personal.terabites.com/
>Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment!  Join at http://www.cauce.org/
>12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent".
>12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America.