Re: In response to Declan's questions about crypto.com

Jonah Seiger didn't have any better sense than to write:

We also recognize the realities of politics. No matter how much any of us might wish it to be true, members of the Commerce Committee were not willing to stand up and simply oppose everything. It was not in the cards. White and Markey offered them a chance to defeat Oxley while throwing a small bone to law enforcement. We believe that passage of SAFE with the White-Markey amendment, despite the problems with the criminal provisions, is on balance, a step forward in the fight for encryption policy reform.

ARE YOU FUCKING CRAZY!!!!????!!!!???? Do you remember the NRA? You know, the organization that used to refuse to compromise on defending the Constitution? Well, they decided to play DC's game, and now they are nothing more than a bunch of lame fucks who spend their time trying to explain to their dwindling membership that people with half-a-brain and a modicum of common sense need to give up their right to self-defense so that brainless retards won't get murdered with their own guns. Louis Freeh wants cryptographers' nuts and the CDT wants to tell us that giving him *one* nut is "a step forward." NEWS FLASH FOR THE LAME FUCKS AT CDT!!!! The Constitution and the Bill of Rights *do*not* end with the words: "...just kidding!" "...unless it's too much trouble." "...except for drug dealers, pedophiles, pornographers and terrorists." "...except for niggers, spics, wops and kikes." "...except for women." "...except for communists." "...except for Dr. Dimitri Vulis, KOTM." "...unless the 'legitimate needs of law enforcement' necessitate the abandonment and/or abrogation of all basic human rights." "...up until the time comes when people purporting to defend basic human rights guaranteed under the Constitution decide to support the compromise of the rights of others."

That's why we have described the vote on cryto.com as a "vote in favor of privacy". I do not expect that this will convince all of our detractors, but I do hope this clarifies the substance of Declan's criticism.

Declan's criticism does not *need* clarifying. What needs clarifying is how CDT and it's bum-buddy organizations can possibly claim to justify the turning of 'rights' into 'privleges' which can then be revoked by those who claim to 'grant' them. Is CDT going to desribe the vote for the law allowing the citizens of the US to take 'reasonable' breathes of air as "a vote in favor of breathing?" Do us all a favor and stand next to the lawyers so that Shakespeare doesn't have to waste bullets when people of reason get tired of letting the lame fucks rule the planet. Toto (posting anonymously)

As always, I am happy to respond to queries about CDT's positions and tactics, but I am not interested in engaging in public flame throwing.

Best,

Jonah

* Value Your Privacy? The Government Doesn't. Say 'No' to Key Escrow! * Adopt Your Legislator - http://www.crypto.com/adopt

-- Jonah Seiger, Communications Director (v) +1.202.637.9800 Center for Democracy and Technology pager +1.202.859.2151 PGP Key via finger http://www.cdt.org http://www.cdt.org/homes/jseiger