Re: "Structuring" of Communications a Felony?

>At 10:57 PM -0800 12/28/96, Lucky Green wrote:
>
>>IMHO, this closes the door on the foreign contracting loophole used by C2
>>and others. It is now illegal for US persons to finance or contract out
>>overseas crypto development, since doing so will obviously assist in
>>proliferation. While not unexpected (I offered a bet on Cypherpunks that
>>this would happen. Nobody took the bet.), this provision sets a dangerous
>>precedence. The technical assistance prohibitions of the past have been
>>transformed into general prohibitions against "financing, contracting,
>>service, support, transportation, freight forwarding, or employment".
>>
>>Again, IANAL.
>
>Nor am I, but I have a "prediction" to make in the spirit of Lucky's types
>of predictions of doom.
>
>I predict that we will see within two years a law making it illegal to
>"structure communications" with the intent to avoid traceability,
>accountability, etc.
>
>This would be along the lines of the laws making it illegal to "structure"
>financial transactions with the (apparent) intent to avoid or evade certain
>laws about reporting of income, reporting of transactions, etc.
>
[snip]
>
>How long before the U.S. Code declares "attempting to obscure or hide the
>origin of a communication" to be a felony? That would rule out orninary
>mail without return adresses, but I think there are ample signs we're
>already moving toward this situation (packages that could be bombs
>putatively require ID, talk of the Postal Service handling the citizen-unit
>authentication/signature system, etc.).
>
[snip]
>You heard it here.
>
>--Tim May

Tim, I think that this is highly unlikely.  The SC has ruled repeatedly
that anonymous speech is a foundation of American politics (e.g., the
Federalist Papers).

Care to make this prediction a bet?

-- Steve

At 1:35 PM -0800 12/29/96, Steve Schear wrote:

>Tim, I think that this is highly unlikely.  The SC has ruled repeatedly
>that anonymous speech is a foundation of American politics (e.g., the
>Federalist Papers).
>
>Care to make this prediction a bet?

Unlike Sandy, I'm not a great believer in multi-year bets as an
epistemological tool....

As to the "anonymous speech" rulings, I mainly know of the 1956 Georgia
case, in which the Supremes struck down a law requiring that leaflets
handed out have a name attached. I don't know of more recent rulings,
especially ones related to the Internet.

(Why this is important is that the Supreme Court has often differentiated
between types of speech. For example, ask a liquor or tobacco company if it
has "freedom of speech." Ask those who put labels on their products if they
have freedom of speech--the Federal Trade Commission, Food and Drug
Administration, etc., declare what may not be said, what must be said, etc.
First Amendment scholars are of course well aware that the First is not
treated as an absolute.)

If origin-labelling is unconstitutional, as Steve claims, then on what
basis can the U.S. Postal Service require identification for packages over
one pound? Surely what is inside the package may be considered "speech" (by
those interested in pushing the point).

And there are many other situations where anonymity is no longer allowed,
where once it was. The gambling example Brian Davis brought up is an
example: for the purposes of tax collection, regulation of gambling, etc.,
winners of nontrivial amounts must identify themselves. (This example shows
that various governmental practices--tax collection, regulation of
substances, regulation of markets, etc.--can be used to trump what were
once considered to be basic freedoms...the freedom to spend money
anonymously, the freedom to travel anonymously, the freedom to not have tax
collectors enter one's house and inspect one's papers, and so on, are no
longer considered to be freedoms.)

As to how such regulations about origin-labeling might develop, here are
several points:

1. A sharp increase in spamming, mass mailing, threatening letters,
etc....sort of like the "denial of service" and spamming/looping attacks
seen here on Cypherpunks, and being seen widely on the Net. This will
increase pressure to "do something about it." A Senator Exon type person
will introduce legislation to require e-mail be labelled.

2. As the Four Horsemen ride, as death threats are delivered anonymously
(as has already happened), further calls will be made for requiring I.D. of
packets. At the least, remailer services will be required to "escrow" the
identities of senders. (The Church of Scientology is a situation to
consider...they were able to force Julf to reveal a pseudonym-true name
mapping, and I expect more such cases...Europe will probably evolve quickly
to a system where pseudonyms will be permitted, providing an "identity
escrow" data base is inspectable by law enforcement and interested parties
in legal cases.)

Such identity escrow in remailer networks would of course put an end to
chaining of remailers.

3. Civil libertarians will wail and will cite the 1956 Supreme Court case
about leafletting. Lawyers on the other side will point out that all that
is being affected is _mail_, not anonymous speech in public fora (though
restrictions on that may be tried, too). That is, that the _content_ of a
package, a la the Postal Service I.D. situation, is not at issue, only the
valid identification of point of origin.

4. A couple of court rulings could devastate remailers. For example,
holding remailers liable, criminally and civilly, for the content of
messages they deliver. Without an origin address, the remailer could be
assumed to have originated the message.

(This has long been an issue, implicit in my "everyone a remailer" thesis
of a few years back. Anyone could send any message, and simply claim "I
didn't write it...I'm just a remailer.")

In closing, I think the Supreme Court will, when it eventually agrees to
hear a relevant case, will differentiate between protected anonymous speech
in public forums and the labelling of sealed packages, sealed letters, and
sealed e-mail. They will argue along the lines of saying that the labelling
law is for the protection of society and not for tracking down dissidents.
The effect will of course be the same, but this will be the fig leaf which
allows them to uphold such laws.

--Tim May





Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside"
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: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

> As to the "anonymous speech" rulings, I mainly know of the 1956 Georgia
> case, in which the Supremes struck down a law requiring that leaflets
> handed out have a name attached. I don't know of more recent rulings,
> especially ones related to the Internet.
> 
> (Why this is important is that the Supreme Court has often differentiated
> between types of speech. For example, ask a liquor or tobacco company if it
> has "freedom of speech." Ask those who put labels on their products if they
> have freedom of speech--the Federal Trade Commission, Food and Drug
> Administration, etc., declare what may not be said, what must be said, etc.
> First Amendment scholars are of course well aware that the First is not
> treated as an absolute.)
=snip=

you might want to check out ...

McINTYRE, executor of ESTATE OF McINTYRE,
DECEASED v. OHIO ELECTIONS COMMISSION
certiorari to the supreme court of ohio
No. 93-986.   Argued October 12, 1994-Decided April 19, 1995


which can be found at 
ftp://ftp.cwru.edu/hermes/ascii/93-986.ZS.filt   --- syllabus
ftp://ftp.cwru.edu/hermes/ascii/93-986.ZO.filt   --- opinion
ftp://ftp.cwru.edu/hermes/ascii/93-986.ZC.filt   --- concurring
ftp://ftp.cwru.edu/hermes/ascii/93-986.ZC1.filt  --- concurring
ftp://ftp.cwru.edu/hermes/ascii/93-986.ZD.filt   --- dissenting


a snippet from the synopsis...

After petitioner's decedent distributed leaflets purporting to express
 the views of ``CONCERNED PARENTS AND TAX PAYERS'' oppos-
 ing a proposed school tax levy, she was fined by respondent for
 violating 3599.09(A) of the Ohio Code, which prohibits the distribu-
 tion of campaign literature that does not contain the name and
 address of the person or campaign official issuing the literature. 
 The Court of Common Pleas reversed, but the Ohio Court of Ap-
 peals reinstated the fine.  In affirming, the State Supreme Court
 held that the burdens 3599.09(A) imposed on voters' First Amend-
 ment rights were ``reasonable'' and ``nondiscriminatory'' and therefore
 valid.  Declaring that 3599.09(A) is intended to identify persons
 who distribute campaign materials containing fraud, libel, or false
 advertising and to provide voters with a mechanism for evaluating
 such materials, the court distinguished Talley v. California, 362
 U. S. 60, in which this Court invalidated an ordinance prohibiting
 all anonymous leafletting. 




------------------------
Name: amp
E-mail: amp@pobox.com
Date: 12/30/96
Time: 05:11:23
Visit http://www.public-action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum

EARTH FIRST! We'll strip mine the other planets later.
------------------------

amp@pobox.com wrote:
> > As to the "anonymous speech" rulings, I mainly know of the 1956 Georgia
> > case, in which the Supremes struck down a law requiring that leaflets
> > handed out have a name attached. I don't know of more recent rulings,
> > especially ones related to the Internet.
> > (Why this is important is that the Supreme Court has often differentiated
> > between types of speech. For example, ask a liquor or tobacco company if it
> > has "freedom of speech." Ask those who put labels on their products if they
> > have freedom of speech--the Federal Trade Commission, Food and Drug
> > Administration, etc., declare what may not be said, what must be said, etc.
> > First Amendment scholars are of course well aware that the First is not
> > treated as an absolute.)

So how would the courts prosecute if me and (n) number of other persons
distribute separate pieces of a "binary", i.e., encrypted or otherwise?

There has been some prior discussion here of splitting files in creative
ways then sending the pieces through multiple channels (and at different
times?)....

Would the courts then insist that every data transmission I ever make
would have to be proved to be meaningful (viewable) text, or in the case
of a binary, have a court-approved checksum?

Is there a presumption that only NSA will be able to forge the
checksums, to get around this problem (for themselves)?

> So how would the courts prosecute if me and (n) number of other
> persons distribute separate pieces of a "binary", i.e., encrypted or
> otherwise?

You could always try it out, and find out :-)  Take a look at:

	http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/export/

several people have used this .sig in the past.  (Returns you the next
3 lines of uuencoded PGP.EXE, sample below).  Perhaps future
structuring of information regs will add new meaning to this.

Adam
--
A protest of the unconsitutional ITAR, a chunk of PGP.EXE:
------------------- PGP.ZIP part [001/713] ------------------
M4$L#!!0````(`">9ZQX3(*,_DG8!`-JF`P`'````4$=0+D581>S;=UQ3U__X
M\9M!$E8,TT@PJ$10$1=*41%WW`KX$=Q[M5KK`&R%(HH+(T.M"S>NME8K=31N
M:A$[K+5(K:O5BE405ZE:1"3?UTW`:K_]\/G\?O_^?CX>3^_-S;GGO,^\`^@W
-------------------------------------------------------------
for next chunk to export --> http://dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/export/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

On Sun, 29 Dec 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:

> Unlike Sandy, I'm not a great believer in multi-year bets as an
> epistemological tool....

Tim has misstated my belief.  I do think that short- or long-term
bets fulfill a purpose, but it is not an epistemological one.
(Tim, are you thinking of Robin or Nick?)  The purpose it serves
is to make pontificators more cautious in the pontifications.  
It's easy to gas on about subjects in which you have no economic
stake; we all do that at times.  The possiblity of financial loss
or reward, however, encourages temperance.


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At 5:07 PM -0800 12/29/96, Sandy Sandfort wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Dec 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
>
>> Unlike Sandy, I'm not a great believer in multi-year bets as an
>> epistemological tool....
>
>Tim has misstated my belief.  I do think that short- or long-term
>bets fulfill a purpose, but it is not an epistemological one.
>(Tim, are you thinking of Robin or Nick?)  The purpose it serves
>is to make pontificators more cautious in the pontifications.
>It's easy to gas on about subjects in which you have no economic
>stake; we all do that at times.  The possiblity of financial loss
>or reward, however, encourages temperance.

Robin and Nick have even more faith in bets as a tool, but Sandy has, at
least on our list, been more of a user of such bets.

My problem has always been that they rarely work...in fact, of the last N
such bets which were offered (e.g., by Sandy) I can't recall a single one
which was ever even accepted, let alone which was settled. (And I recall
"bets" offered to Phill Hallam-Baker, Dimitri Vulis, etc.)

So, the thesis that pontifications are lessened is wiped out by the fact
that no such bets have ever, in my memory, been accepted. If anything,
those challenged to "put their money where their mouth is" almost uniformly
write _more_, not less.

While I accept the basic prinicple (and my income depends to a large extent
on my investments, which is surely an example of putting my money where my
mouth is, to a large extent), I question the usefullness in forums like
ours. For obvious reasons.

--Tim May


Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside"
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: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

On Sun, 29 Dec 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:

> Robin and Nick have even more faith in bets as a tool, but Sandy has, at
> least on our list, been more of a user of such bets.
> 
> My problem has always been that they rarely work...in fact, of the last N
> such bets which were offered (e.g., by Sandy) I can't recall a single one
> which was ever even accepted, let alone which was settled. (And I recall
> "bets" offered to Phill Hallam-Baker, Dimitri Vulis, etc.)

Tim's error is assuming that the offer of the bet did not "work"
merely because the bet was not taken.  All the bets I offered 
achieved effects I intended.  (Exercise for the student, and all
that.)  


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In <Pine.SUN.3.91.961229182726.15540A-100000@crl8.crl.com>, on 12/29/96 
   at 06:33 PM, Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com> said:

::Tim's error is assuming that the offer of the bet did not "work" merely
::because the bet was not taken.  All the bets I offered  achieved effects I
::intended.  (Exercise for the student, and all that.)  

    subtle as always, Sandy?  mind control, cypherpunk style.

  ==
  I'll get a life when it is proven
    and substantiated to be better
      than what I am currently experiencing.
            --attila

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: latin1
Comment: Encrypted with 2.6.3i. Requires 2.6 or later.

iQCVAwUBMsg6/704kQrCC2kFAQFuJgP/X/xLJnrnan1BN0kWFotO/cSjj/IcbJHs
gNVSEcy+TI1/7zqu1u8fIrfWwYXmLQUhAuqFyFGw4fh7S8Mt5oHTuF7KgS4LO1gQ
Ny6md/VxoNrLpsaKjZaxRNd6MDDlQuivk4e0PdMbFjj9I6j1T2EWITCENvypDD/9
o2tMXubXk+g=
=UN7P
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Sun, 29 Dec 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:

> At 1:35 PM -0800 12/29/96, Steve Schear wrote:
> 
... snip ...
 
> As to the "anonymous speech" rulings, I mainly know of the 1956 Georgia
> case, in which the Supremes struck down a law requiring that leaflets
> handed out have a name attached. I don't know of more recent rulings,
> especially ones related to the Internet.
> 
> (Why this is important is that the Supreme Court has often differentiated
> between types of speech. For example, ask a liquor or tobacco company if it
> has "freedom of speech." Ask those who put labels on their products if they
> have freedom of speech--the Federal Trade Commission, Food and Drug
> Administration, etc., declare what may not be said, what must be said, etc.
> First Amendment scholars are of course well aware that the First is not
> treated as an absolute.)
> 
> If origin-labelling is unconstitutional, as Steve claims, then on what
> basis can the U.S. Postal Service require identification for packages over
> one pound? Surely what is inside the package may be considered "speech" (by
> those interested in pushing the point).
> 

Unless the regulations apply to UPS, FED-EX etc., I don't see how the two
situations are comparable.  The government refusing to deliver packages
(via the USPS) unless certain conditions are met is not the same as saying
no one may deliver unless those conditions are met.  Now, passing email 
from its source, through  several remailers and to its destination does
not involve any government agency.  The government may still try to
control it, but they can't justify it by analogy to labeling of normal
mail (which they are involved in delivering).  

>
... snip ...

> As to how such regulations about origin-labeling might develop, here are
> several points:
> 
... snip ...

> 3. Civil libertarians will wail and will cite the 1956 Supreme Court case
> about leafletting. Lawyers on the other side will point out that all that
> is being affected is _mail_, not anonymous speech in public fora (though
> restrictions on that may be tried, too). That is, that the _content_ of a
> package, a la the Postal Service I.D. situation, is not at issue, only the
> valid identification of point of origin.
> 

And the civil libertarians ought to reply that email is like _mail_ in
name only.

>
... more snip ....

> --Tim May
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside"
> 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: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
> "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
> 
> 
> 

- --------------------
Scott V. McGuire <svmcguir@syr.edu>
PGP key available at http://web.syr.edu/~svmcguir
Key fingerprint = 86 B1 10 3F 4E 48 75 0E  96 9B 1E 52 8B B1 26 05



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBMQ3Kdt7xoXfnt4lpAQFCDwP/T95pprHGaq/KkFXe4YT1yBLIo5HL8po4
f20LIRJmP45Pp5x3zp/SSW8wOd+9DsQxkvNau7jOJrk0a4jmaqI/uzgbjkefIjwg
nAzEiQmnIC7wWeiTP0SsZrcdt34sVkwHERmu2nvttd3y5VAfS+rIb716dsnuGtWF
TY/geMGRrd8=
=RK96
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Another point about "anonymous speech" and its legal protections (a la the
1956 Georgia leafletting case), consider a similar "basic right": the right
to move freely and anonymously.

Well, it turns out that in the U.S. this right is thwarted by income tax
laws. Not to mention driver's license laws, Social Security laws, etc.

(Yes, as Duncan and others are fond of pointing out, there are ways to
avoid some of these laws. I won't recap them here. But these are often
difficult to bypass, at least for those not constantly watching every
action they take, and may be felonies in some cases. Loompanics and Paladin
sell various books on creating new identities, etc.)

For example, while citizen-units in the United States are free to move to
new locales without permission and without registration, unlike in some
countries, the tax collector expects a valid home (or at least mailing)
address on tax returns. (Use of a tax preparer is one workaround, though
the tax preparer probably is required by some law or another to know the
"true domicile" of a client...left as an exercise as to whether this is
ever enforced.)

My point is not to attack the notion of taxation, but to note that tax
collection often involves by necessity (for our current approach) strong
invasions of privacy...no different from when the King's Tax Collector
roamed around one's farm and household looking for things to tax. Harry
Browne makes this point eloquently in his new book, "Why Government Doesn't
Work."

I believe the various rumblings about regulation of digital cash and
electronic mail will turn out to be enacted with this kind of justification.

--Tim May


Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside"
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: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."