Re: "Structuring" of Communications a Felony?

[jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>]

At 01:35 PM 12/29/96 -0800, Steve Schear wrote:
>>I predict that we will see within two years a law making it illegal to
>>"structure communications" with the intent to avoid traceability,
>>accountability, etc.
>>
>>This would be along the lines of the laws making it illegal to "structure"
>>financial transactions with the (apparent) intent to avoid or evade certain
>>laws about reporting of income, reporting of transactions, etc.
>>
>>How long before the U.S. Code declares "attempting to obscure or hide the
>>origin of a communication" to be a felony? That would rule out orninary
>>mail without return adresses, but I think there are ample signs we're
>>already moving toward this situation (packages that could be bombs
>>putatively require ID, talk of the Postal Service handling the citizen-unit
>>authentication/signature system, etc.).
>>--Tim May
>
>Tim, I think that this is highly unlikely.  The SC has ruled repeatedly
>that anonymous speech is a foundation of American politics (e.g., the
>Federalist Papers).
>-- Steve

When Senator Leahy's first crypto bill was proposed early this year, at 
first glance it appeared to help our cause. Many people around here at least 
gave it lukewarm support.  However, it contained a section making  (quote 
approximate) "use of encryption to thwart an investigation" a crime.  I 
pointed out, quite loudly, that any encrypting anonymous remailer could be 
considered practically automatically guilty of this.  In fact, the feds 
could simply start a sham "investigation," perhaps assisted by a phony 
message sent by a confederate through the remailer, and then declare that 
their investigation had been "thwarted."

Whether such an interpretation would fly was, obviously, a question, but by 
the time the SC had issued its ruling the remailer's hardware would have 
been siezed collecting dust in some Fed warehouse for 2-3 years.


Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com