US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment

[Tim May]

On Jan 13, 2004, at 8:41 AM, Steve Schear wrote:

> At 11:23 PM 1/12/2004, Tim May wrote:
>
>> During the Carnivore debate, I argued that mandatory placement of 
>> computer agents in systems was equivalent to quartering troops:
>>
>> < http://www.mail-archive.com/cypherpunks@algebra.com/msg03198.html>
>>
>> "The Third Amendment, about
>> quartering troops, is seldom-applied.
>>
>> "But if I own a computer and I rent out accounts to others and the FBI
>> comes to me and says "We are putting a Carnivore computer in your
>> place," how else can this be interpreted _except_ as a violation of
>> the Third?"
>>
>> This was from July, 2000. I believe it also came up in earlier 
>> discussions, including in a panel I was on with Michael Froomkin at a 
>> CFP in 1995.
>
> I could assume this also applies to the the TCPS (if it is ever 
> required) and FCC's new mandate that DTV video devices sold in the 
> U.S. after December 31, 2004 include a 'cop' inside to enforce 
> compliance with the broadcast flag.

In its purest form, I think not.

If Alice is told that she must place some device in something she owns, 
which was the example with Carnivore, then the Third applies (she has 
been told to "quarter troops," abstractly, in her home).

If, however, Bob is told that in order to build television sets or VCRs 
he must include various noise suppression devices, as he must, or 
closed-captioning features, as he must, or the V-chip (as I believe he 
must, though I never hear of it being talked about, as we all figured 
would be the case), or the Macrovision devices (as may  be the case), 
then this is a matter of regulation of those devices. Whether Alice 
then _chooses_ to buy such devices with "troops already living in 
them," abstractly speaking, is her choice.

Now the manufacturer may have a claim, but government regulation of 
manufacturers has been going on for a very long time, and unless a 
manufacturer can claim that the devices must be in his own home or 
operated in his premises, he cannot make a very strong case that _he_ 
is the one being affected by the quartering.

The pure form of the Third (in this abstract sense) is when government 
knocks on one's door and says "Here is something you must put inside 
your house."

By the way, there have been a bunch of cases where residents of a 
neighborhood were ordered to leave so that SWAT teams could be in their 
houses to monitor a nearby house where a hostage situation had 
developed. (It is possible that in each house they occupied they 
received uncoerced permission to occupy the houses, but I don't think 
this was always the case; however, I can't cite a concrete case of 
this. Maybe Lexis has one.)

If this takeover of houses to launch a raid is not a "black letter law" 
case of the government quartering troops in residences, nothing is. 
Exigent circumstance, perhaps, but so was King George's need to quarter 
his troops.


--Tim May
""Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who 
approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but 
downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." 
--Patrick Henry