Re: FC: Responses to Tim May's criticism of SAFE, and a rebuttal (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 18:44:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Charles Platt <cp@panix.com> To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu Cc: Charles Platt <cp@panix.com> Subject: Re: FC: Responses to Tim May's criticism of SAFE, and a rebuttal
From: Jonah Seiger <jseiger@cdt.org> However, despite our concerns about the criminal provisions, we believe strongly that the SAFE bill, and the bills in the Senate sponsored by Burns and Leahy, are vitally important and should be passed.
This kind of "pragmatism" is precisely why I have no faith whatsoever in CDT. There's a slippery slope, here, that really IS a slippery slope. As soon as you agree with the principle that the legislators can and SHOULD pass laws in a certain area, you risk losing large chunks of freedom. Conversely, so long as the area remains sacrosanct, free of legislation (e.g. the content of private mail), the situation remains clear and clean. Once you have one law, naturally some special-interest group will complain, some lobbyists will have their own ideas, some other legislators will see an opportunity to extend/clarify/amend/expand the legislation, and before you know it, you've got the war on drugs or something similar, costing billions, depriving relatively innocent people of their liberty, and achieving nothing. I absolutely agree with Tim May. There is no excuse for introducing legislation to control something fundamentally harmless that is not currently controlled. More legislation is absolutely the LAST thing this country needs.
Congress needs to stand up to the Administration and say, with a strong voice, "your policy is a failure - we need a different solution". That's what SAFE, Pro-CODE, and ECPA II do.
For some reason I have difficulty trusting Congress to protect my rights in this matter, or in any other matter. Those who seek help from government should recall Barry Goldwater's famous quote, which went something like this: "When you have a government big enough to give you everything you want, it's big enough to take it all away."
From: Charles Platt <cp@panix.com>
From: Jonah Seiger <jseiger@cdt.org>
However, despite our concerns about the criminal provisions, we believe strongly that the SAFE bill, and the bills in the Senate sponsored by Burns and Leahy, are vitally important and should be passed.
This kind of "pragmatism" is precisely why I have no faith whatsoever in CDT. There's a slippery slope, here, that really IS a slippery slope. As soon as you agree with the principle that the legislators can and SHOULD pass laws in a certain area, you risk losing large chunks of freedom.
Ok, I think I can agree with your principles, if they are stand-alone. However, I believe the issue here is not whether your (and Tim's) principles are correct; instead, the issue here is of time and what time we have left. I must point out the following: The NSA/FBI is NOT standing still while we are all bickering about precisely which dotted-i and crossed-t to support. They can, at the stroke of Clinton's executive order pen, initiate effectively THEIR law, while we must gather forces and summon Congress to jump through enough hoops to pass effective legislation. In short, they can get what they want instantly, while we cannot except through a long and arduous process (during which they can throw many procedural and lobbying obstacles to slow us down). The process is clearly in THEIR favor (and not without good reason), and we must face that fact. In an ideal world, when we can stop time for as long as we want to sit around a table and discuss just what is good and bad legislation, we can afford to be pure on principle. However, time is running out because the longer we wait for ANY legislation to pass, the more nations the NSA will coerce behind closed doors (and remember, you have ZERO real ability to affect these slimy maneuvers) in the name of national security. It takes just one Om Shinri Kyo (sp?) in any nation to convince its leaders to pass knee-jerk panic legislation in the name of security, and it's the fault of politics at the beck and call of human nature (not just stupid politicians).
Conversely, so long as the area remains sacrosanct, free of legislation (e.g. the content of private mail), the situation remains clear and clean.
NO! This is totally contrary to the facts! And I don't understand why you did not respond to this point when I brought it up earlier. This area is MOST CERTAINLY NOT free of legislation. Have you tried to openly export a IDEA- or 3DES-based non-key-recovery (real commercial) product lately? Have you set up an open, publically announced FTP site where anyone can freely fetch strong encryption sources? If not, then explain why, if there is no legislation on this matter, couldn't you do it? Just because there isn't an explicit bill somewhere that, in no uncertain terms, clearly grants or denies a right to Americans, does not mean that no government agency have any real effective claim on control of the matter. Why else would we be having this discussion? Ern -- Ernest Hua, Software Sanitation Engineer/Chief Cut And Paste Officer Chromatic Research, 615 Tasman Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94089-1707 Phone: 408 752-9375, Fax: 408 752-9301, E-Mail: hua@chromatic.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <199705021910.MAA07300@server1.chromatic.com>, on 05/02/97 at 01:10 PM, Ernest Hua <hua@chromatic.com> said:
And I don't understand why you did not respond to this point when I brought it up earlier. This area is MOST CERTAINLY NOT free of legislation. Have you tried to openly export a IDEA- or 3DES-based non-key-recovery (real commercial) product lately? Have you set up an open, publically announced FTP site where anyone can freely fetch strong encryption sources? If not, then explain why, if there is no legislation on this matter, couldn't you do it?
Well I can't speak for Tim's actions in this area but I can say that I have made strong crypto available for download via the INet. And I ahev openly announced that I have made such available on numerious newsgroups and mailing lists. http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html There is no legislation on this matter only an unconstitutional presidental order. - -- - ----------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. Finger whgiii@amaranth.com for PGP Key and other info - ----------------------------------------------------------- Tag-O-Matic: I don't do Windows, but OS/2 does. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Registered User E-Secure v1.1 ES000000 iQCVAwUBM2qav49Co1n+aLhhAQGAwwP+LFiVHklv2hrgHbXZN4UXfUBfoXmJmj03 8ysTTonDW/MSADkqZv4sJ1CwcHyqjkav03Q8BMHkmm+aU29pz9Tct45BXvPXaxL3 q6kagRFFxPJlQIfDF28BsEP44TPOFCJMb+FbgXZH5ZANPndB+Qjbfz77MdWKsjhP HANONjCmnZY= =Caca -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
And I don't understand why you did not respond to this point when I brought it up earlier. This area is MOST CERTAINLY NOT free of legislation. Have you tried to openly export a IDEA- or 3DES-based non-key-recovery (real commercial) product lately? Have you set up an open, publically announced FTP site where anyone can freely fetch strong encryption sources? If not, then explain why, if there is no legislation on this matter, couldn't you do it?
Well I can't speak for Tim's actions in this area but I can say that I have made strong crypto available for download via the INet. And I ahev openly announced that I have made such available on numerious newsgroups and mailing lists.
Ok. I'll give you a brownie point for an FTP site. I honestly don't think the NSA has time to go after a few, small-time, non-commercial FTP sites, and I don't believe site maintainers like you have much to lose on this matter. The NSA is not as dumb as the Scientologists on fighting a handful of individuals on the Net (most of whom can easily get any job they want in the high tech industry, including charging
$100 per hour consulting, so the NSA has almost no leverage, and the backlash is even worse).
On the other hand, SGI, Sun, HP, IBM, AT&T, etc. have much more to lose than you do. They have huge government contracts (which they coincidentally announced very soon after they signed up for the key-recovery initiative), which the NSA can threaten. They have other export licenses (non-encryption-related) they need.
There is no legislation on this matter only an unconstitutional presidental order.
Well, I'm not going to get technical here on just what is in effect. A presidential order is often as good as a hard legislation. In this case, it is just as good. And it's not just encryption. Look at what happened to SGI when several supercomputers were discovered to have gone to China? Again, it's just an execute order, not hard legislation. (And there are good reasons for giving the executive branch executive priviledge, as there is no reason to micromanage other branches of the government unless there is a serious issue.) And this is what the administration argued for before enough legislators thought it was a serious issue. My conclusion on the issue of whether or not there is legislation on this matter, is yes. Is it technically a bill which passed congress? No. Is it some rule that some branch of government can use to harass you? Yes. That's effective enough for me (in fact, it's worse, because it is "more arbitrary"). Ern -- Ernest Hua, Software Sanitation Engineer/Chief Cut And Paste Officer Chromatic Research, 615 Tasman Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94089-1707 Phone: 408 752-9375, Fax: 408 752-9301, E-Mail: hua@chromatic.com
[I've been away from my computer, else I would've responded to Ernest's post earlier.] At 11:10 AM -0800 5/2/97, Ernest Hua wrote:
In short, they can get what they want instantly, while we cannot except through a long and arduous process (during which they can throw many procedural and lobbying obstacles to slow us down). The process is clearly in THEIR favor (and not without good reason), and we must face that fact.
Yes, and they keep throwing out new proposals (Clipper I, II, and III, Key Recovery Initiative, Trusted Third Parties, blah blah). Not to mention Digital Telephony, iterations of the copyright law, and ambiguous legislation about terrorism and assistance to terrorists. They can generate laws far faster than we can mount political counter-efforts, especially since the lobbying agencies (FBI, NSA, Commerce, FCC, FDA, SEC, etc.) are using _our_ stolen money to pay for these lobbying efforts. It's hopeless to fight them on their own turf, as they hold most of the cards (and we paid for them).
It takes just one Om Shinri Kyo (sp?) in any nation to convince its leaders to pass knee-jerk panic legislation in the name of security, and it's the fault of politics at the beck and call of human nature (not just stupid politicians).
And this will happen regardless of whether SAFE passes or not. As several of us have pointed out, SAFE contains prominently mentioned provisions for the stoppage of crypto exports (and maybe even domestic distribution) should terrorism or military diversions be linked. (Stuff about the EEPA, for example.) When a nut shot up a schoolyard, we lost our basic right to buy basic firearms. (The same thing happened in Australia and Britain, too. Almost as if there's a script being followed. "Save the children" is the passphrase for removing liberties.) When it was _suspected_ that a bomb took the TWA flight down, look what happened to the liberties of travellers in public places. As Ernest notes, all it will take is one _major_ terrorist incident for many of the remaining liberties to vanish in a period of a few weeks. Had the World Trade Center bombs succeeded (in bringing down one of the towers), this would have done it. When freedom fighters ultimately succeed in, say, killing 5000 Londoners in a Sarin or Ricin attack in the Tube, expect dramatic moves in all Western nations to sharply curtail civil liberties. There is no hope that legal measures can maintain liberty. Only technological bypasses of the State can succeed. --Tim May There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
In short, they can get what they want instantly, while we cannot except through a long and arduous process (during which they can throw many procedural and lobbying obstacles to slow us down). The process is clearly in THEIR favor (and not without good reason), and we must face that fact.
Yes, and they keep throwing out new proposals (Clipper I, II, and III, Key Recovery Initiative, Trusted Third Parties, blah blah). [SNIP] They can generate laws far faster than we can mount political counter-efforts [SNIP]
Yup. But again, they are given that priviledge for good reasons, one of which is that they are supposedly the "experts", whatever that means.
It's hopeless to fight them on their own turf, as they hold most of the cards (and we paid for them).
Amen.
It takes just one Om Shinri Kyo (sp?) in any nation to convince its leaders to pass knee-jerk panic legislation in the name of security, and it's the fault of politics at the beck and call of human nature (not just stupid politicians).
And this will happen regardless of whether SAFE passes or not. As several of us have pointed out, SAFE contains prominently mentioned provisions for the stoppage of crypto exports (and maybe even domestic distribution) should terrorism or military diversions be [SNIP]
I think this really depends upon how the "terrorism" cause is determined. If it is the arbitrary decision of the executive branch alone, then we have to question why the Clinton administration still believes we are under such imminent threat, and how this is different from the critieria being imposed by the SAFE provisions.
[SNIP] weeks. Had the World Trade Center bombs succeeded (in bringing down one of the towers), this would have done it. When freedom fighters ultimately succeed in, say, killing 5000 Londoners in a Sarin or Ricin attack in the Tube, expect dramatic moves in all Western nations to sharply curtail civil liberties.
I think we violently agree here, except for one-sided terminologies like "freedom fighters" or "terrorists".
There is no hope that legal measures can maintain liberty. Only technological bypasses of the State can succeed.
However, here is where we don't necessarily agree. Laws are around to allow some "civilized" co-existance, where "civilized" is defined by the basic rights and liberties of members of that society. It is important to follow laws for what they are intended to do. It is important to have a viable process for questioning and revising laws which do not have desired intent or effective control. It is also bad to have laws which do not clearly define what they restrict, and it is here which I, and many others, do not like ITAR. I don't buy the burden of multiple export version argument because most software exports HAVE to have multiple export versions for other reasons such as language, cultural considerations, etc ... I don't completely like the first amendment argument because it is solely based on claiming that software is, first and foremost, expression. In fact, software has mechanism and side effect of mechanism. If software were strictly expression, it is hard to imagine how a multi-billion industry could have spawned from such an inert practice. Another example: one could argue that crafting an grenade launcher is artistic expression, but surely few would consider THAT argument when faced with such an "expressive" neighbor. The point here is that software, by itself, could never have the imminent danger that a grenade launcher could have. Therefore, it should be incumbent upon the export regulators to prove that the software poses imminent danger before they should be allowed to regulate export. In that sense, I have no problems with restricting, for instance, software which is specifically designed to, say, hide the transport of nuclear weapons. Of course, I have no idea how one could design a piece of software to do that, but IF the DoC/DoD/NSA/FBI can prove that a piece of software was designed primarily to do that, then I'll be happy to allow them to restrict the export of THAT specific piece of software. On the other hand, most software, especially those that fall into the freeware or shareware category on the Net, have proven to be of significant positive contribution to society. Encryption is a fundamental element (not the only element) in protecting our Net. In addition, equivalent strength or better encryption is already available outside the U.S., so the laws do not have any real effect on the general spread of encryption, unless of course, we have any legitimate interest in deliberately crippling the protection mechanisms in GII. If there is, it would have to be a one-sided and government-only interest (and I know that these arguments are based on outdated Cold War thinking). Therefore, I must conclude that, while there may have been reasons in the past for restricting encryption export, it is no longer net positive value for the U.S., as a nation, to restrict its export. This is why I don't care if SAFE explicitly declares that using encryption to hide a crime is illegal (though I don't see the need for an explicit declaration). As long as SAFE invalidates ITAR with respect to encryption, then Americans no longer have to prove that encryption exports are being used for "bad" purposes; now it is up to law enforcement to prove that an export is being used for "bad" purposes. While that may sound like a small gain, it is a huge win for encryption liberty. Ern -- Ernest Hua, Software Sanitation Engineer/Chief Cut And Paste Officer Chromatic Research, 615 Tasman Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94089-1707 Phone: 408 752-9375, Fax: 408 752-9301, E-Mail: hua@chromatic.com
On Mon, 5 May 1997, Ernest Hua wrote:
I don't completely like the first amendment argument because it is solely based on claiming that software is, first and foremost, expression. In fact, software has mechanism and side effect of mechanism. If software were strictly expression, it is hard to imagine how a multi-billion industry could have spawned from such an inert practice. Another example: one could argue that crafting an grenade launcher is artistic expression, but surely few would consider THAT argument when faced with such an "expressive" neighbor.
I concur. A citizen has the right to manufacture a grenade launcher under the Second Amendment (irrespective of what judges scared into submission by Roosevelt et al may have ruled), not the First.
I don't completely like the first amendment argument because it is solely based on claiming that software is, first and foremost, expression. In fact, software has mechanism and side effect of mechanism. If software were strictly expression, it is hard to imagine how a multi-billion industry could have spawned from such an inert practice. Another example: one could argue that crafting an grenade launcher is artistic expression, but surely few would consider THAT argument when faced with such an "expressive" neighbor.
I concur. A citizen has the right to manufacture a grenade launcher under the Second Amendment (irrespective of what judges scared into submission by Roosevelt et al may have ruled), not the First.
This discussion is starting to drift away from the original point ... I suspect that the Second Amendment was created strictly for the defense of the citizenry from a tyrannical government. I have a hard time with "the right to sport shooting" argument, as there were no such mention in the Amendment. I think if one wants to argue the Second Amendment, one should restrict the issues to genuine and effective civil defense against a tyrannical government. I would suspect that few would tolerate such a sweeping right today, as it is hard to imagine what would constitute genuine and effective civil defense against a tyrannical government given the power of today's governments. In some convoluted way, one could argue that encryption is one way to defend ourselves against a tyrannical state as the state's power is held in check if they cannot arbitrarily gather information on anything or anyone. Of course, to say that could effectively diminish the argument for physical defense as one is effectively trusting the integrity of one's interconnect to the NII/GII. If you don't trust the government, you certainly should have difficulty believing your ?II connection is safe and sound. I would really prefer to keep the follow up's to this message on private E-Mail, as it is starting to get off-topic. Thanks. Ern -- Ernest Hua, Software Sanitation Engineer/Chief Cut And Paste Officer Chromatic Research, 615 Tasman Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94089-1707 Phone: 408 752-9375, Fax: 408 752-9301, E-Mail: hua@chromatic.com
On Mon, May 05, 1997 at 04:53:28PM -0700, Lucky Green wrote:
On Mon, 5 May 1997, Ernest Hua wrote:
I don't completely like the first amendment argument because it is solely based on claiming that software is, first and foremost, expression. In fact, software has mechanism and side effect of mechanism. If software were strictly expression, it is hard to imagine how a multi-billion industry could have spawned from such an inert practice. Another example: one could argue that crafting an grenade launcher is artistic expression, but surely few would consider THAT argument when faced with such an "expressive" neighbor.
I concur. A citizen has the right to manufacture a grenade launcher under the Second Amendment (irrespective of what judges scared into submission by Roosevelt et al may have ruled), not the First.
I have heard, from a knowledgable person, that the reason that the NRA has not pressed a constitutional challenge is that their lawyers tell them that the historical context clearly indicates that the second amendment does *not* protect individual ownership of firearms, and that a constitutional challenge would almost certainly lose. Hence the NRA resorts to lobbying. That is, it is not a matter of Roosevelt scaring the judges, but a matter of the clear intent of the constitution. This made sense to me -- if the constitutional grounds were clear the NRA could save a tremendous amount of money and trouble just by letting the court rule on it -- Roosevelt is dead. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55 http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html
Kent Crispin writes:
On Mon, May 05, 1997 at 04:53:28PM -0700, Lucky Green wrote:
I concur. A citizen has the right to manufacture a grenade launcher under the Second Amendment (irrespective of what judges scared into submission by Roosevelt et al may have ruled), not the First.
I have heard, from a knowledgable person, that the reason that the NRA has not pressed a constitutional challenge is that their lawyers tell them that the historical context clearly indicates that the second amendment does *not* protect individual ownership of firearms, and that a constitutional challenge would almost certainly lose. Hence the NRA resorts to lobbying. That is, it is not a matter of Roosevelt scaring the judges, but a matter of the clear intent of the constitution.
This made sense to me -- if the constitutional grounds were clear the NRA could save a tremendous amount of money and trouble just by letting the court rule on it -- Roosevelt is dead.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less." The constitution is entirely clear on this point. There really is no need to look at historical context except where the meaning of the constitution itself is *not clear*. The "right of the people... shall not be abridged" clause is in no way conditional on the first ("well-regulated militia") clause, even though most would agree that the first serves as a rationale. If the authors of the bill of rights had meant something else, they could have and would have written something else. The NRA knows this. They just don't trust the Supremes to agree with their conclusion. Understandably so, given the court's record-- not to mention its usual reluctance to overturn precedents. This is a problem with constitutions or any other sort of written documents. Pinheads can always say the document doesn't *really* mean what it clearly says. There's obviously no way to fix that through the document itself. (I'm sure Jim Bell will say he has a solution though. :-) -- Jeff
(This is veering off into a typical Second Amendment debate, the bane of so many lists and newsgroups, so I will be brief and will try to make this my last comment in this thread.) At 8:43 PM -0800 5/5/97, Kent Crispin wrote:
I have heard, from a knowledgable person, that the reason that the NRA has not pressed a constitutional challenge is that their lawyers tell them that the historical context clearly indicates that the second amendment does *not* protect individual ownership of firearms, and that a constitutional challenge would almost certainly lose. Hence the NRA resorts to lobbying. That is, it is not a matter of Roosevelt scaring the judges, but a matter of the clear intent of the constitution.
This made sense to me -- if the constitutional grounds were clear the NRA could save a tremendous amount of money and trouble just by letting the court rule on it -- Roosevelt is dead.
I don't buy this "knowledgeable person"'s claim (though all manner of opinions emanate from the NRA). NRA literature has consistently claimed the opposite. Now, why there hasn't been a major court challenge is unclear, and this theory is one explanation. But there are others, such as NRA willingness to save the rights of "hunters" over the rights of "militia members." Or a calculation that the courts would rule against gun ownership, for whatever reason. I can't find support for the notion that the Founders were not speaking about individual ownership of firearms. First, essentially every household, except perhaps in the larger cities, had a musket or rifle, such as they were in those days. These were used for putting food on the table, defense against Indians, and all the usual Colonial cliches. Second, there was never a formal "militia" in most communities. The "militia" was the informal formation of a defense force should the need arise. Thus, the weapons were those the households had, the rifles and muskets that farmers, traders, and shopkeepers had at their disposal. There certainly was no mention of a "National Guard Armory" where such weapons were to be stored! In any case, arguing the "intent" of the Founders is always problematic. I favor direct action. Caching weapons in secure places, for example. Buying several thousand rounds of ammo, and setting up reloading capabilities, for another. And quitting the NRA, which is too namby pamby about gun rights. And, last but not least, buying a defensible home on top of a hill. --Tim May There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
At 09:43 PM 5/5/97 -0700, Kent Crispin thoughtfully expounded thus:
I have heard, from a knowledgable person, that the reason that the NRA has not pressed a constitutional challenge is that their lawyers tell them that the historical context clearly indicates that the second amendment does *not* protect individual ownership of firearms, and that a constitutional challenge would almost certainly lose. Hence the NRA resorts to lobbying. That is, it is not a matter of Roosevelt scaring the judges, but a matter of the clear intent of the constitution.
I suppose one can quibble on this, but I do not think this is the case. It _is_ possible that precedent and the accumulation of rulings would not support an individual right to bear arms, but from a strict constitutional POV, as well as the historical record of quotations by the Founding Fathers and associated writings, it is very clear that the second amendment was specifically written to protect the individual RTKBA in order to resist the establishment of a tyrannical government. One of the best reviews of this is: The Embarassing Second Amendment by Sanford Levinson, Yale Law Journal Volume 99, pp 637-659 (1989) Tom Porter txporter@mindspring.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi
At 10:42 AM -0800 5/5/97, Ernest Hua wrote:
weeks. Had the World Trade Center bombs succeeded (in bringing down one of the towers), this would have done it. When freedom fighters ultimately succeed in, say, killing 5000 Londoners in a Sarin or Ricin attack in the Tube, expect dramatic moves in all Western nations to sharply curtail civil liberties.
I think we violently agree here, except for one-sided terminologies like "freedom fighters" or "terrorists".
I've been trying consciously to use "freedom fighter" in nearly all cases where the Administration would use "terrorist." It causes people to sometimes do a double take, and think more closely about the underlying issues. In fact, many of the world's so-called "terrorists" are in fact fighting for some form of liberation from colonialists, corporations who bought up land from corrupt dictators, and so on. We could argue whether the IRA is a "freedom fighting" group, given that Protestants are in a majority in Northern Ireland, but then we'd have to also consider the British policies which encourgaged migration of Protestants to Ireland, etc. (Are American Indians who fight for basic rights, and for enforcement of treaties, terrorists or freedom fighters? Or something else? Or do labels matter?) And what about the "freedom fighters" in the jungles of Burma (Myanmar) Phil Zimmermann likes to cite as critical users of PGP? By the standards of the official government of Burma, these folks are terrorists. (They blow up bridges, derail trains, etc.) I usually cite these rebels as obvious examples of terrorists using strong crypto. And by the fact that Phil Z. advertises the use of PGP by these terrorists, I submit that SAFE could be invoked so as to halt international exports of PGP by using the clause which says: " The Secretary shall authorize the export or reexport of software with encryption capabilities for nonmilitary end-uses ...unless there is substantial evidence that such software will be...diverted to a military end-use or an end-use supporting international terrorism...[or]...modified for military or terrorist end-use..." Slam dunk! "PGP being used by terrorists in Burma...license for export denied." (And there's no way to bring in such sophistry as "legitimate governments." The government of Burma is not substantially less legitimate than are hundreds of other governments.) "Terrorism" is just another mode of warfare. (If the argument is that terrorism involves attacks on civilians, what were the firebombings of Dresden (300,000 German civilians killed) and Tokyo (200,000 killed), not to mention Hiroshima. And so on. Most arguments purporting to prove that various "terrorist" groups are not legitimate freedom fighters will turn up such inconsistencies.) The State of Israel got a big boost from terrorism, with the Stern Gang bombing British barracks, bridges, etc. Begin was even a member. And so it goes. --Tim May, referred to as an "info-terrorist" by one government guy There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
On Sat, May 03, 1997 at 11:01:23PM -0800, Tim May wrote: [...]
When a nut shot up a schoolyard, we lost our basic right to buy basic firearms. (The same thing happened in Australia and Britain, too. Almost as if there's a script being followed. "Save the children" is the passphrase for removing liberties.)
When it was _suspected_ that a bomb took the TWA flight down, look what happened to the liberties of travellers in public places.
As Ernest notes, all it will take is one _major_ terrorist incident for many of the remaining liberties to vanish in a period of a few weeks. Had the World Trade Center bombs succeeded (in bringing down one of the towers), this would have done it. When freedom fighters ultimately succeed in, say, killing 5000 Londoners in a Sarin or Ricin attack in the Tube, expect dramatic moves in all Western nations to sharply curtail civil liberties.
I think rather it is an inevitable consequence of population density and technological advancement. Technological advancement creates the facilities that a deranged individual can use to cause large amounts of damage in a very short time. Society doesn't yet have a successful response to this problem.
There is no hope that legal measures can maintain liberty. Only technological bypasses of the State can succeed.
This is a persistent misstatement on your part. You constantly label your enemy as the "state", but really it is society as a whole. Government, military, industry, small business, the educational system, the "masses" -- it is all a parcel, and it is very difficult (if not meaningless) to try to single out the "state" as an independent actor in this parcel. In any case, even "technological bypasses" will almost certainly fail. Then what? -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55 http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html
participants (8)
-
Declan McCullagh -
Ernest Hua -
Jeff Barber -
Kent Crispin -
Lucky Green -
Thomas Porter -
Tim May -
William H. Geiger III