Communication

Jim rites:
>Logic lesson for Padgett:
>There are at least three categories here:
>1.  Government restricts communication.
>2.  Government neither assists nor restricts communication.
>3.  Government assists communication.  (through stolen tax dollars, BTW.)

Oh, now I see where you are confused. To me there are at least six
categories - the three you mention but in matrix form with two
columns: Wholly inside the USA and from the USA to/from "elsewhere".

(2) applies inside the USA and in some cases (3) - and tax dollars are not
necessarily "stolen", the Constitution specifies that taxes may be levied for
certain matters. (1) does not apply though through the rationale/excuse of
"maximising the use for all" some regulations have been enacted primarily
by the FCC. It is not improbable that the FCC's area of responsibility might
extend to the Internet once considered a "national resource". Not saying
right or wrong, just "could" & would not be surprised.

In the case of communications with "other" entities, I expect all three to
apply in different instances - what makes anon.penet.fi different from the
L. A. Times.

Now in the case of extra-National communications, I believe that in certain
cases the Nation-state has not only the sovereign right of control but the 
obligation to control. For example just to pick a popular example, France 
might negotiate a trade agreement with the USA that included an agreement to 
block all PGP communications between the two countries. That would be legal.

What the US does not really have is the *ability* to control communications.

							Warmly,
								Padgett

A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security writes:

> Now in the case of extra-National communications, I believe that in certain
> cases the Nation-state has not only the sovereign right of control but the 
> obligation to control. For example just to pick a popular example, France 
> might negotiate a trade agreement with the USA that included an agreement to 
> block all PGP communications between the two countries. That would be legal.

Padgett, you can't just throw out these pronouncements without supporting 
arguments.  Why would this be legal?  Merely because you say so?
Where would the US government get the authority to prohibit all PGP
communications?  If you still insist this is allowed by the "regulate
foreign commerce" clause of the US Constitution, you at least need
to describe how the USG would attempt to justify it to a court as
commerce.  Furthermore, since the foreign commerce clause is also the
inter-state commerce clause, explain why the government can't use the
same argument to prohibit us folks in Georgia from using PGP in our
communications with Californians (for example).  Or do you believe it can?


-- Jeff