Outlawing the overhearing of conversations

[tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)]

Regarding the topic of a 15-year prison term for receiving broadcasts
one is not supposed to,

Steve Bellovin wrote:

> I'm not defending a 15 year sentence; it's far too harsh.  But I
> strongly disagree with ``why outlawing it in the first place? What is
> crypto for?''  By analogy, why outlaw burglary?  After all, what are
> safes and alarms for?
> 
> The purpose of a civilized society is precisely to avoid this sort of
> ``arms race'' between bandits and those who pay for services.  Even
> libertarians generally agree that theft is wrong, and theft of service
> is just as wrong as theft of tangible objects; otherwise, there is

As a libertarian, I disagree that thefts of services are the same as
thefts of tangible objects.

Consider some possible "thefts of services":

- I'm tuning my radio, listening to what is freely available on my
property, and I hear something that helps me in some way. Have I
broken any law, plausibly?

- I find a number which looks to be compressed or encrypted. I fiddle
around with it and manage to decrypt it, and it turns out to be a
useful to me (and possibly harmful to others). What law have I broken,
plausibly? 

- I'm a 15th-century blacksmith. I use the new technology of printing
to help people learn to do basic home-blacksmithing. The Blacksmith's
Guild claims I have deprived them of business and have violated their
rights. Etc.

The "listening to the radio" and "decrypting a number" are both
similar situations. (I threw in the last point to make a slightly
different point, about the collapse of guilds and the parallels to
what is now happening with corporations.)

If I overhear someone talking in a restaurant, is this criminal? Does
it matter if I learn something of commercial value or not? The common
sense response is that those who don't want to be overheard should
either keep their voices down or speak in a kind of code. Talking
about trade secrets of business deals where conversations can be
overheard, and then claiming "theft of services" is an abuse of the
law.

And impossible to enforce, as the current scanner laws are.

The issue of "spaces" also comes up. Personal, local spaces (such as
houses, offices, etc.) are protectable, and a thief who enters can be
captured, shot, etc. But extending this idea of a personal space to
include things spoken in public places, or broadcast for hundreds of
miles with radio or television transmitters, is a terrible idea.

Let those who speak in a public place--restaurants, the airwaves--but
wish not be understood by outsiders choose a technology which supports
this.

Don't ask me, or other taxpayers, to prosecute those who happen to
hear and understand what was said.

(There are more interesting digressions into privately-produced law,
into haow insurance companies would charge to insure against such
cases, etc.)

I know of very few libertarians who support the idea of criminalizing
the hearing of broadcast messages, let alone who would criminalize
mere possession of certain kinds of radios (scanners).

--Tim May


-- 
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
"National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."