making anonymity illegal

[John Gilmore]

> >I was thinking along the same lines. This seems to be a market 
> opportunity 
> >for an Internet provider that keeps no IP address<->identity records for 
> >more than a few minutes or hours.
> 
> That would be a wise move. That would continue for about three weeks, and 
> then we'd see a bill out of Congress demanding that ISPs retain identity 
> for, oh, maybe seven years?
> 
> Will Rodger
> Director Public Policy
> CCIA
> www.ccianet.org

Will's straight answer points up the magnitude of the problem we face.
It doesn't matter what the Constitution says; the government has figured
a way around the Constitution.

The courts have already ruled that the government can't require someone
to produce ID unless they have 'probable cause' to search that person.
(Kolender v. Lawson, 9th Circuit; upheld by Supreme Court on other grounds).
There's no probable cause to search every person using the Internet (or
every person entering a Federal building, or airport, or ...).

The government's problem is: to circumvent the Fourth Amendment, which
prohibits the government being able to search any person on flimsy
excuses.  The answer is: The government merely mandates that THIRD
PARTIES collect all the information that the government desires to
search on flimsy excuses.  The government gets a court rulings that
say people have no Fourth Amendment interest in records about them
which are held by third parties (These rulings have existed for
years).  Then the government searches those third party records at
will.

This is the Constitutional end-run that's behind CAPPS 2, TIA, and
many other government programs (catching deadbeat moms, etc).

Our trick will be to teach the courts about how this end-run works.

	John

---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at wasabisystems.com