Banned Research and Raids on "Secret Labs"
Tim May
tcmay at got.net
Sun Jul 1 11:36:55 PDT 2001
At 10:00 AM -0700 7/1/01, Tim May wrote:
><x-flowed>Here's an item about the Feds banning certain types of biological
>research. More evidence that government is flexing its muscles to
>interfere in research it has decided is not acceptable...or that it
>is not controlling for its own purposes. I wonder what Thomas
>Jefferson, a noted amateur scientist, would have thought of the
>federal government raiding labs and subpoening records when it
>decided it wanted to? His cryptography research, for example? So much
>for the real spirit of the First and Fourth, amongst others.
I discussed several different issues related tot his raid/ban/UFO cult/etc.
To separate some of the issues:
1. The basic issue of the constitutionality in these united States of
"bans" on research, qua research. Whether the research is about
cloning or cryptography or nuclear science, the issue of whether
government has the constitutional authority to _ban_ research (as
opposed to, say, exploding nuclear weapons or manufacturing nerve
agents) is a basic one.
1A: Congress surely has the authority to bar the use of government
funding in human cloning. The issue above is not about government
funding, but whether they may suppress scientific research by
individuals, universities, corporations, and other non-federally
funded entities.
2. The issue of how "raids" and "subpoenas" and "visits" and
"crackdowns" occur. This is related to the issue of warrants and
subpoenas being increasingly easy to obtain, with many judges
pre-signing stacks of warrants/orders to be used as LEAs see fit. In
the case of this "secret lab" being "visited." there are Fourth
Amendment and trespassing issues.
2A: Trespassing on corporate property has long been the norm for
regulatory agents, without them seeking specific court approval. OSHA
visits corporations (and even private institutions) to check on the
height of seat chairs and the placement of safety showers. Fire
marshals check for fire extinguishers and safety posters. Perhaps
worst of all, IMO, "Child Protective Services" has the apparent
right, they claim, to show up at a house or apartment and demand to
inspect the premises. These are all cases where the letter of the
Fourth Amendment is certainly not being followed, and the spirit is
being obliterated. There is very little difference between what the
Founders were concerned about, that the King's Men would randomly
enter homes looking for seditious materials and troublemakers, and
the current situations where the new instances of the King's Men can
enter homes, corporations, and other private properties to look for
politically incorrect materials.
2B: Copyright and anti-piracy is a related issue. Surprise audits of
corporations, for example. (Hey, if I _suspect_ my neighbor has
illegally copied a tape I lent him just for viewing, can I demand to
inspect his house?)
3. The "chilling effect" issue. These raids and "timeouts" (their
language) are used to harass and slow down researchers and other
politically incorrect persons. The language is telling: "send a
message," "signal our unhappiness," "order a timeout," "a shot across
the bow," etc. These raids and subpoenas and "visits" are designed
to intimidate in an extra-constitutional way. The Founders would see
this as another case of the King's Men throwing their weight around.
(We have seen this in crypto, where labs get "visits" by Men in Black
from the Office of Export Control, the NSA, etc. We see fewer
reports, at least reported here, of researchers being warned that
their research could land them in trouble, but it probably still
happens. )
4. Lastly, the science and pseudoscience issue. This UFO cult was
visited/raided on the basis of bizarre claims about their desire to
clone a dead baby, with some weird mix-in cult beliefs. Where's the
scientific credibility that they have the means and knowledge to do a
real clone?
All of these issues are part of the slippery slope of banning
research. We are seeing a move toward an era of Forbidden Knowledge.
It started with some limited areas of military research and extended
into cryptography in the 60s and 70s (maybe some classifications
before the 60s, too). Now it is being extended into biology.
Sen. Feinstein wants "bomb-making instructions" banned. Sen.
Lieberman has his own list of things he wants banned.
My reading of the U.S. Constitution says that government may not ban
information or limit the reading (research, thinking) activities of
the people.
And it says the powers of law enforcement are not to be used outside
of legitimate court-ordered actions, with public trials and juries of
one's peers. Using law enforcement to "send messages" and "order
timeouts" and "fire a shot across the bow" is just not part of our
judicial or legislative system.
But since the Supreme Court has not even dared to revisit the Second
Amendment limitations (of Miller), they are unlikely to face up to
this slippery slope of increasing Thought Police activities.
--Tim May
--
Timothy C. May tcmay at got.net Corralitos, California
Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon
Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go
Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
More information about the Testlist
mailing list