On Dec 25, 1995 23:36:00, 'Kevin L Prigge <Kevin.L.Prigge-2@cis.umn.edu>' wrote:
According to rumor, James A. Donald said:
While channel surfing around 6PM today on Christmas day, I saw President Clinton announce the grave international threat posed by terrorists, drug dealers and money launderers wielding computers (Only three horsemen -- he left out child pornographers.)
Probably because child pornographers have been dealt with in the recent bill signed by Bill, which mandates 24-30 months for transmitting child porn, double if a computer is used.
see Reuters, "Clinton acts to tougher penalties" 23 Dec 95 08:40 clari.news.crime.sex Message-ID: <Rclinton-pornographyURN-1_5DN@clari.net> see AP, "Clinton signs porn bill," 23 Dec 95 09:40 clari.news.crime.sex Message-ID: <Aclinton-pornoURCBj_5DN@clari.net> What is most interesting is how far the four horsemen have rampaged and the destruction they have already done. The internet is not the *least* regulated as those pushing for "tougher penalties" claim. One can argue, using the new federal doubling of prison terms when computers are used, that it is the *most* regulated. One can also see how far the combination of sexual hysteria and fear of new technology has fed into and been used by politicians from throughout the political spectrum. It also shows how much of the government threat to privacy is a social, not a technological, issue. While people argue about heat-death-of-the-universe encryption algos, a different form of hot air is producing the heat death of civil liberties. While cyber-libertarians talk about how strong crypto algos are needed to protect property and how "the statists in Washington" are trying to take away their crypto, right-wing pro-capitalist politicians have already taken away civil liberties. While crypto-radicals talk about how strong crypto algos are needed to lead the revolution and how "the nazis in Washington" are trying to take away their crypto, sexual hysterics calling themselves "radical feminists" have already helped take away many civil liberties. I support strong crypto. I support powerful and secure algos. I see it as a wonderful development of technology to protect individual privacy. But privacy is only one right of the citizen; it is only one of the many civil liberties under attack. I am also disturbed by the number of discussions on the list that may be on topic but avoid *these* social issues, E.G. Army vs. Navy Captain? how cheap is AT&T? Bizdos: confused executive vs. conspiratorial swine? Are CFS programmers being treated nicely? Fred Cohen: nice guy victim or swine? Why Alice should use PGP. Ever heard of bit fiddlin' while Rome burns? --tallpaul