Re: Cato forum tomorrow: should money laundering be a crime?

>(Why is this discussion limited to just the four of us? Surely Declan and
>his Cato buddies are worthy to hear our arguments? I dislike the "taking
>things private" mindset, when the lists are already so cluttered with Toto
>rants and other consumers of vast amounts of bandwidth.)

If my header lines implied this, it was inadvertent.  I agree more 'relevent' content on CP is desireable.

>I haven't quite said that all forms of communication/spending money will be
>speech and therefore protected. (Besides, we all know of many forms of
>speech that are unprotected.)
>
>What I (and Michael Froomkin, in his own CFP talk) have argued is that
>digital money will be _undetectable_ in many cases unless government
>demands that the contents of a private communication be revealed. A kind of
>prior restraint on speech.
>
[snip]

>If the government determines, somehow, that Alice was
>involved in an illegal transaction, tax evasion, money laundering, etc.,
>they can try to get her on that. But they can't insist that words be
>submitted to a government agent for approval."

Isn't uttering a check protected speech?  What about if a check is stego-coded in some political rant?  Can the Feds insist I not utter that speech?

--Steve


PGP mail preferred, see  	http://www.pgp.com and
				http://web.mit.edu/network/pgp.html

RSA fingerprint: FE90 1A95 9DEA 8D61  812E CCA9 A44A FBA9
RSA key: http://keys.pgp.com:11371/pks/lookup?op=index&search=0x55C78B0D
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Schear              | tel: (702) 658-2654
CEO                       | fax: (702) 658-2673
First ECache Corporation  |
7075 West Gowan Road      |
Suite 2148                |
Las Vegas, NV 89129       | Internet: schear@lvdi.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------

	I know not what course others may take; but as for me, 
	give me ECache or give me debt!

	"It's your Cache"

On Mon, 8 Dec 1997, Steve Schear wrote:
> 
> Isn't uttering a check protected speech?  What about if a check is stego-coded in some political rant?  Can the Feds insist I not utter that speech?

The feds can do anything they want. If it pleases them to put a bullet
through your head, or  that of you wife, they can do so at their leisure.
Without any fear of future consequences. Just ask Randy Weaver. Or his
wife. Never mind. You can't  ask his wife. She received a bullet.

If the feds can *kill* you for any reason or no reason at all, they
certainly can throw you into the slammer for  whatever you may choose to
utter.

-- Lucky Green <shamrock@cypherpunks.to> PGP v5 encrypted email preferred.
   "Tonga? Where the hell is Tonga? They have Cypherpunks there?"

Thanks Lucky, I wasn't aware of that ;-)

At 9:52 AM +0100 12/9/1997, Lucky Green wrote:
>On Mon, 8 Dec 1997, Steve Schear wrote:
>> 
>> Isn't uttering a check protected speech?  What about if a check is stego-coded in some political rant?  Can the Feds insist I not utter that speech?
>
>The feds can do anything they want. If it pleases them to put a bullet
>through your head, or  that of you wife, they can do so at their leisure.
>Without any fear of future consequences. Just ask Randy Weaver. Or his
>wife. Never mind. You can't  ask his wife. She received a bullet.
>
>If the feds can *kill* you for any reason or no reason at all, they
>certainly can throw you into the slammer for  whatever you may choose to
>utter.
>
>-- Lucky Green <shamrock@cypherpunks.to> PGP v5 encrypted email preferred.
>   "Tonga? Where the hell is Tonga? They have Cypherpunks there?"