John Krezner points out that EFF's crypto statement says * 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?
Jerry Berman responds:
NO. NO NO Thanks for pointing this out. I am sure our board will move to amend the section to state our intent with the following words: "broadened access, provided it is consistent with the Constitution and the Bill of rights" or some such formulaton.
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-----
----------------------------------------------------------- EFF ADDRESS Jerry Berman Executive Director Electronic Frontier Foundation 1001 G St, NW Suite 950 East Washington, DC 20001 202-347-5400 (v) 202-393-5509 (f) jberman@eff.org Join EFF! For information about membership, send mail to eff@eff.org.