At 08:34 PM 4/13/96 -0800, jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com> wrote:

At 08:07 PM 4/13/96 -0400, s1113645@tesla.cc.uottawa.ca wrote:

...

On Tue, 9 Apr 1996, jim bell wrote:

...

Look, very carefully, at the last paragraph quoted above. Mr. Safdar says, "No reasonable person is objecting to the FBI's right to conduct a wiretap."

That's right. Because no reasonable person thinks they can convince Congress or the Supremes otherwise. It isn't impossible, but energies are best spent elsewhere, like getting the Burns bill passed.

But that's not entirely the issue. Mr. Safdar's wording is critical, because it concedes FAR too much about what the government is assumedly entitled to do. Below, you've admitted that everybody here believes in what Mr. Safdar claims "no reasonable person" believes. [snip]

No. Shabbir claims just what he said, AFAIK, that "no reasonable person is objecting..." A very different matter. What I believe and what I choose to object to through organized political initiatives may be two different things. If Shabbir's wording is so critical, why did you change it by adding "believes?" I don't believe government should be able to wiretap it's citizens, but I also don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell of taking that power away from the FBI. That's why I want strong crypto. There is a far greater chance of getting some decent crypto legislation enacted than of completely removing the FBI's authority to wiretap. It's a much more "reasonable" goal, in that sense. There are people much more deserving of cypherpunk scorn than someone who works as hard on these issues as Shabbir. It's pretty pathetic, Jim. Rich ______________________________________________________________________ Rich Burroughs richieb@teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~richieb See my Blue Ribbon Page at http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/blueribbon New EF zine "cause for alarm" - http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/cause