🚀 go-pugleaf

 In <1992Nov12.012409.26925@news.cs.indiana.edu> Marc VanHeyningen
 <mvanheyn@whale.cs.indiana.edu> writes:


>"The right to free speech includes the right to speak in a fashion not
>easily understood by others."

 Certainly we can agree that "speaking" via wires or on public
 "airwaves" is not, ultimately, free.  Given that resources are
 consumed, there will be regulations for use.

 But does society have the right, *after* due process, to see behind
 any secrecy veil a private citizen may erect?  While a citizen may
 not be compelled to testify against himself, his or her "houses,
 papers, and effects" are only protected from *unreasonable* "search
 and seizure" (that is, without a warrant issued for probable cause).

 Since society *did* have an existing right to penetrate secrecy
 (*after* due process) under The Constitution, we would have to
 argue that there is no social need for such access under new
 security technology.  Can anyone believe that no cases will exist
 under which society will require such access?  Thus, is punishment
 for failure to allow access (*after* due process) somehow not
 a legitimate law?

 I think it would be easier to argue for legislation setting higher
 standards for warrants than it would be to argue that all personal
 information is ultimately private under all circumstances.

 ---
 Terry Ritter   ritter@cactus.org