🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1ej1fsINN5ad@morrow.stanford.edu>, castor@drizzle.Stanford.EDU (Castor Fu) writes:
> With all the talk about "suspected" child molesters, etc. I thought I
> would bring up one point. How do people feel about restricting cryptographic
> privileges of people once they have been convicted of a particular
> set of crimes?
> 
> It seems to me that  once a person has violated certain rules, e.g.
> child molestation, insider trading, etc.  one might restrict their
> access to tools which are particularly useful towards those ends,
> e.g. guns, crypto etc.
> 
> After all, in the case which is being discussed, hadn't this person
> been previously convicted of child molesting?
> 
> --
> Castor Fu, (foo@leland.stanford.edu)

With all due respect, 


Let me get this straight. YOu are suggesting that convicted felons are required
to give up their privacy even after their terms are up. I don't see the
differience between this and requireing them to wear a transmitter at all times
so that the LE staffers can listen in at random without due process (in
principal). Felons have rights. (Yes, I know about no guns for felons but how
was the constitution bypassed here?)

Let me suggest some reading. First, try 'Lacey and Friends' as a look at what
the USA as a police state might be like, Then tell us if it is
relevent.(author???) Next, Try Poe's 'A Cask of Amontillado'. Think of the host
as the US government, The guest as the US people, and the bricks as small laws
of restriction. 


Regards, Ethan