The Right to Keep and Bear Crypto

A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people
 to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
                                 --Constitution of the United States of America,
                                 Amendment II, 1791

I'm not a consitiutional scholar, but it seems to me that since the
government has already classed crypto as arms via ITAR and since the I am
guaranteed the right to bear arms I choose to bear the crypto of my choice
as part of my arsonal.

The founding father's believed that the citizen's right to arms is all that
may ultimately stand in the path of a government no longer duly
constituted.  In such a case a manditory GAK system could render all but
the government's crypto impotent, disarming the populace of this valuable
weapon.

I therefore propose that since only strong crypto may be secure against the
government in such a circumstances the government may not deny me the right
to keep and bear the strong crypto of my choosing, unless I use it for
criminal purpose.  Futher in order that citizen militias employing strong
crypto be well regulated (e.g., well maintained) the practice of using
strong crypto by such citizens must be regular and wide spread.

-- Steve



PGP Fingerprint: FE 90 1A 95 9D EA 8D 61  81 2E CC A9 A4 4A FB A9
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Snoop Daty Data           | Internet: azur@netcom.com
Grinder                   | Voice: 1-702-655-2877
Sacred Cow Meat Co.       | Fax: 1-702-658-2673
7075 W. Gowan Road, #2148 |
Las Vegas, NV 89129       |
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Just say NO to prescription DRUGS.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for
 the good of its victims may be the most oppressive."
    -- C.S. Lewis

"Surveillence is ultimately just another form of media, and thus, potential
entertainment."
    -- G. Beato

No. And No.  This argument will never fly in any court.

If you want to see why, go to my homepage

http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin

and search for the (fictional!)  "really pro-Clipper court decision". 
Then find the section trashing this argument.  (sorry I can't give a
better pointer but I'm not at work today). 

On Wed, 2 Oct 1996, Steve Schear wrote:

> A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State,
> the right of the people
>  to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
>                                  --Constitution of the United States of America,
>                                  Amendment II, 1791
> 
> I'm not a consitiutional scholar, but it seems to me that since the
> government has already classed crypto as arms via ITAR and since the I am
> guaranteed the right to bear arms I choose to bear the crypto of my choice
> as part of my arsonal.
> 
[etc.]

**Benjamin Bradley Froomkin, b. Sept. 13, 1996, 8 lbs 14.5oz 21.5"**
                  **Age two weeks: 9 lbs 12 oz, 23"**
A. Michael Froomkin        | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)
Associate Professor of Law | 
U. Miami School of Law     | froomkin@law.miami.edu
P.O. Box 248087            | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin
Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's hot here.  And humid.

(I know I said I would try to avoid posting today, to make up for
necessarily sending my party announcement to the list, but this is too
important a topic to be silent on. I almost always agree with newcomer
Steve Schear, but on this point I think he is dead wrong.)

At 3:30 PM -0700 10/2/96, Steve Schear wrote:
>A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
>the right of the people
> to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
>                                 --Constitution of the United States of
>America,
>                                 Amendment II, 1791
>
>I'm not a consitiutional scholar, but it seems to me that since the
>government has already classed crypto as arms via ITAR and since the I am
>guaranteed the right to bear arms I choose to bear the crypto of my choice
>as part of my arsonal.

I've argued since 1992 on Usenet and here that "crypto as arms" is a
potentially dangerous tack to follow. (Others, including legal experts,
have also argued this point.)

Given that it is well-established, whether we agree or not, that the USG
may restrict private ownership of atom bombs, nerve gases, CBW weapons,
machine guns, switchblade knives, nunchuk sticks, and various other "arms,"
the association of crypto with armaments is potentially *DISASTROUS*.

A far better strategy is to associate crypto with *speech*, which most
people seem to think has stronger protection. And, truth be told, I view
encrypted communications as a helluva lot more like a form of communication
than I view it as a cousin to my Heckler & Koch .45 USP.

In my view, equating crypto with armaments is exactly what the USG would
like to see happen. This legitimizes their control of crypto.

--Tim May

We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."