-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
* There must be no broadening of governmental access to private communications and records, through wiretap law or otherwise, unless there ^^^^^^ is a public consensus that the risks to safety outweigh the risks to liberty and that our safety will actually be increased by the broadened access.
Does this imply that if some ``majority'' so elects, then you _would_ sacrifice your privacy to broadened governmental access? Is this a surrender to the most tenacious tyranny of all, the tyranny of the majority? Or do you interpret ``consensus'' rigorously, that is, as an absence of dissent? John E. Kreznar | Relations among people to be by jkreznar@ininx.com | mutual consent, or not at all. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCUAgUBLQaRYMDhz44ugybJAQFvcQP40mk62IRXKxUmwrHrTRfu5XTcXjzVDtJ2 ovW9qCDlZXaQgWVDdgII85BvjgKvqKY6CyeBj9yyvTIgOU7yI7RviN81J63dIh47 ADIlRyCq+GRGvq2rlitw9D3TgQizyzvL7alQm2oviWd/nU8bqDHTQ8wZgABhnf4O XbtT+vJWRA== =mcsu -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----