[86765] in Cypherpunks
Re: Crypto-law etc
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Kelsey)
Thu Sep 18 20:14:14 1997
From: "John Kelsey" <kelsey@plnet.net>
To: <cmcmanis@FreeGate.net>, <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 18:17:03 -0500
Reply-To: "John Kelsey" <kelsey@plnet.net>
> From: Chuck McManis <cmcmanis@FreeGate.net>
> To: cypherpunks@toad.com
> Subject: Crypto-law etc
> Date: Wednesday, September 17, 1997 2:35 PM
> The longer I follow the crypto "debate" the more I begin to
> understand what must have been the real intent behind the
> 2nd amendment of the constitution.
>
> If the White House can get crypto code defined in the true
> legal sense (that is backed up by case law) as a munition,
> do US citizens then have a constitutional right to "bear" it?
Sure. We get the same right to bear it as we have to own rocket
launchers, machine guns, or flame throwers--none. The second
amendment hasn't protected our right to possess those things,
which pretty clearly fall into the realm of its direct intentions--why
would it protect our right to use crypto, which isn't even that clear
cut?
> Just curious,
> --Chuck
--John Kelsey, kelsey@counterpane.com
