Re: Radio Free Cypherpunks... (fwd)

Forwarded message:

> Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 15:49:40 -0800
> From: Steve Schear <schear@lvdi.net>
> Subject: Re: Radio Free Cypherpunks... (fwd)
> 
> Over a year ago I started a heated thread on the Telecom Regulation list,=
>  "Basis of FCC jurisdiction," which posited that the Commerce Clause basis=
>  for FCC authority might not hold for very low power and tens of GHz=
>  transmissions.  My argument, in short, was that if a transmission couldn't=
>  reasonably be expected to be detectable (using common receiver technology)=
>  across state lines then the FCC shouldn't have jurisdition.

So, are you considering such a broadcast? What I envision is a
text-to-speech and/or a digital format.


    ____________________________________________________________________
   |                                                                    |
   |                                                                    |
   |      We built your fort. We will not have it used against us.      |
   |                                                                    |
   |                          John Wayne -  Allegheny Uprising          |
   |                                                                    |
   |                                                                    | 
   |            _____                             The Armadillo Group   |
   |         ,::////;::-.                           Austin, Tx. USA     |
   |        /:'///// ``::>/|/                     http://www.ssz.com/   |
   |      .',  ||||    `/( e\                                           |
   |  -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-                         Jim Choate       |
   |                                                 ravage@ssz.com     |
   |                                                  512-451-7087      |
   |____________________________________________________________________|

>> Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 15:49:40 -0800
>> From: Steve Schear <schear@lvdi.net>
>> Over a year ago I started a heated thread on the Telecom Regulation list,=
>>  "Basis of FCC jurisdiction," which posited that the Commerce Clause basis=
>>  for FCC authority might not hold for very low power and tens of GHz=
>>  transmissions.  My argument, in short, was that if a transmission
couldn't=
>>  reasonably be expected to be detectable (using common receiver
technology)=
>>  across state lines then the FCC shouldn't have jurisdition.

Back in the Depression, the FDR-bullied Supremes ruled that a farmer
feeding his own grain to his own hogs was affecting interstate commerce
(in violation of federal regs on grain production), because he would
otherwise have been buying grain that might have come from another state.
Similarly, the federal drug laws contend that there's federal jurisdiction
over all drugs, because it's not practical to determine whether a given
bunch of drugs was locally produced or transported across state lines,
and that there should therefore be a presumption that it was for
determination of jurisdiction (even marijuana plants still in the ground;
presumably if you were to ding them for that in court, they'd respond with
the concept that growing your own dope to smoke by yourself is supplanting
dope you might have otherwise bought from another state.  Or they'd decide
the local cops can confiscate your land instead.)

At 11:40 PM 12/15/1997 -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
>So, are you considering such a broadcast? What I envision is a
>text-to-speech and/or a digital format.

You can get FM transmitters for about $30 at Fry's.  Not very powerful,
and probably less than a mile range, but it may have hack value,
especially if there were lots of them.
				Thanks! 
					Bill
Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com
PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF  3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

At 5:05 PM -0700 12/16/97, Steve Schear wrote:
>>Back in the Depression, the FDR-bullied Supremes ruled that a farmer
>>feeding his own grain to his own hogs was affecting interstate commerce
>>(in violation of federal regs on grain production), because he would
>>otherwise have been buying grain that might have come from another state.
>>Similarly, the federal drug laws contend that there's federal jurisdiction

>I believe this is the type of systemic constitutional abuse, fostered by
>SC's expansive interpretations, which Jim Bell was attempting to address
>via AP.


Well, my personal view is that all of these burrowcrats and judges
certainly identified themselves as "needing killing."

Whether Bell's lottery system is the best way to accomplish this is
debatable, but these folks sure did earn a bullet.


--Tim May



The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^2,976,221   | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

>Back in the Depression, the FDR-bullied Supremes ruled that a farmer
>feeding his own grain to his own hogs was affecting interstate commerce
>(in violation of federal regs on grain production), because he would
>otherwise have been buying grain that might have come from another state.
>Similarly, the federal drug laws contend that there's federal jurisdiction
>over all drugs, because it's not practical to determine whether a given
>bunch of drugs was locally produced or transported across state lines,
>and that there should therefore be a presumption that it was for
>determination of jurisdiction (even marijuana plants still in the ground;
>presumably if you were to ding them for that in court, they'd respond with
>the concept that growing your own dope to smoke by yourself is supplanting
>dope you might have otherwise bought from another state.  Or they'd decide
>the local cops can confiscate your land instead.)

I believe this is the type of systemic constitutional abuse, fostered by SC's expansive interpretations, which Jim Bell was attempting to address via AP.

>
>At 11:40 PM 12/15/1997 -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
>>So, are you considering such a broadcast? What I envision is a
>>text-to-speech and/or a digital format.
>
>You can get FM transmitters for about $30 at Fry's.  Not very powerful,
>and probably less than a mile range, but it may have hack value,
>especially if there were lots of them.

These devices are low power, but must still meet FCC type approvals (e.g., Part 15).  I'm talking about confronting the FCC on the legality of their jurisdiction over non-type approved, intrastate manufactured and utilized devices.

--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
Lammar Laboratories       |
7075 West Gowan Road      |
Suite 2148                |
Las Vegas, NV 89129       | Internet: schear@lvdi.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------