RE: The Right to Keep and Bear Crypto

[Assumptions: Crypto is arms.  We have the right to bear arms. 
 Therefore: We have the right to bear crypto.]

Following along with the news stories, it would seem the USG doesn't disagree
with this logic.  What they are attempting to do is limit world distribution,
*not* internal distribution.  Even with the new key recovery idea, crypto
which remains in the US will continue to be unregulated. 

   Another fear is that the administration is using export 
   limits to control domestic use of encryption. While Gore 
   directly stated yesterday that domestic use of encryption 
   will remain unregulated, the double standard for domestic 
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   and international products might discourage U.S. 
   companies from developing two different versions, leaving 
   U.S. and Canadian customers with the same products that 
   the federal government has deemed safe to ship overseas.  
                      [_GAK_Rat_Pack_, John Young, 3 Oct 96]

This may (will?) limit the products which are produced by large corporations,
as their need for a single, globally distributable product is respected.
However, smaller companies who have neither the desire nor finances to
distribute their product on a global scale will be unaffected.  Shareware/
freeware products will also be unaffected (unless someone from another
country pulls it off a website, or similar means).

However, all of this is irrelevant, because I must say, Tim May has the
proper idea -- We may have the right to bear crypto, but the government
has the right to limit the types/amounts of crypto we bear.
 
** Success in this matter is classifying crypto as speech **

I read somewhere (probably here) about a case which was (was destined??) to
be a precedent for crypto as speech.  All I can remember was something about
the code being classified as speech, or something like that.  Sorry I can't
quite remember what it was.  Anyone have any suggestions/references?

Patrick

At 11:39 AM -0400 10/3/96, Mullen Patrick wrote:

>However, all of this is irrelevant, because I must say, Tim May has the
>proper idea -- We may have the right to bear crypto, but the government
>has the right to limit the types/amounts of crypto we bear.

Careful! I did not say this. At least not in the form here.

>** Success in this matter is classifying crypto as speech **

This was closer to the point I actually made.

>I read somewhere (probably here) about a case which was (was destined??) to
>be a precedent for crypto as speech.  All I can remember was something about
>the code being classified as speech, or something like that.  Sorry I can't
>quite remember what it was.  Anyone have any suggestions/references?

This was Judge Patel's earlier ruling in the Bernstein matter, much
discussed here of late. But until the Supremes get the case, eventually,
and rule on it one way or another, I think it's not well-established.

--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."