politics aren't all or nothing
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- My problem with the "it's hopeless, politicians are idiots" approach is the same as my problem with Tim May's approach --- it predisposes one to think that a revolution and possibly violence are the only way to change the laws. It is an attitude which constructs an obstacle which may or may not be there. I get really sick of the inane "nuke DC" talk. Call me a naive optimist, or an idiot; I believe there's hope to wage and win the battle politically, and I think there's actually hope for real democracy without the memetics bullshit and the control and the manipulation. I got a personal reply from a Senator to whom I sent that last release (the one interviewing Michael Wilson of 7Pillars). It wasn't one of those autoresponders -- it just said "Thank you for your views" with bad text formatting. At least it did get someone's attention. It might be negative attention, but dammit, if they're going to look Wilson's reputation in the face and not at least consider that they might be wrong then they've obviously all been killed and government programmed clones installed in their place. They're really well educated people, for the most part --- somewhere along the line they must have gotten that stuff about "considering that you are incorrect" and the rest. While skimming their web pages looking for information, I found one or two senators and congress reps who actually offer PGP keys on their web pages! Senator Leahy, for one, is a vocal proponent of strong crypto. There is hope! Some of those people do see "the light" on this issue. It's a matter of getting the heavy-handed ones to just for a second consider the other side's view. I think this particular release hits hard because shit, Wilson's the virtual incarnation of Ares, and the warmongers may listen to him. I think a lot of them know they're being manipulated, but they get only a limited set of information from the "authoritative" defense and intelligence people who give them the "secret classified briefings", and they simply can't confront the spooks because they think they'd get kicked from their positions of power in a few years. If they have in their possession a testimony that a defense and intelligence _scholar_ says that the spooks are wrong, they may be able to start turning the tide. Mostly, I just don't want to get nuked. I don't want the people in Washington to get nuked. I don't want to be ostracized because a disjointed group I'm associated with has members who support nuking political opponents. "Nuke DC" is crap. "Ecash Assassination Politics" is crap. The loss of faith in one's ability to convince other people with rational discussion is crap. That whole attitude reminds me of the guys in early grade school who beat up on me because I was a nerd. I refuse to sink to their level. Mark Hedges -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBNCGn+hVo2SUWMp6NAQH7lwP/dEWDmzEgx9LEs3m68KGWcKNGVUCSjFjd qOjkBKQQo9Ib+8CefheigwRPXh8J5s4aBJPDVvJbTnvJJ2F7Olr1VpvmhzDwMt8g A99iSuvn/Dn7cJUmcc5M9aeVhRtXFcl0LRsfOiHQO4eGXia3fWA6BM1pAybIzHAp 4sj8MyE+ZpM= =8r8K -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Mostly, I just don't want to get nuked. I don't want the people in Washington to get nuked. I don't want to be ostracized because a disjointed group I'm associated with has members who support nuking political opponents. "Nuke DC" is crap. "Ecash Assassination Politics" is crap. The loss of faith in one's ability to convince other people with rational discussion is crap. That whole attitude reminds me of the guys in early grade school who beat up on me because I was a nerd. I refuse to sink to their level.
I agree that Nuking D.C. would be a shame. Think of the Smithsonian and all those national treasures which would be destroyed. --Steve
At 15:16 -0700 9/18/97, Mark Hedges wrote:
My problem with the "it's hopeless, politicians are idiots" approach is the same as my problem with Tim May's approach
Sure, not all DC politicans are idiots. Most are damn smart. All are cunning. But just because they understand the technology doesn't mean they're going to vote the right way. In fact, I could see Tim May arguing if they understand the implications of crypto, they'll //definitely// vote the wrong way.
I got a personal reply from a Senator to whom I sent that last release (the one interviewing Michael Wilson of 7Pillars). It wasn't one of those autoresponders -- it just said "Thank you for your views" with bad text formatting. At least it did get someone's attention. It might be negative
Sure, you got //someone's// attention. From an $18,000-a-year just-out-of-college staffer who lives in a group house in Arlington, VA with three other people who gets paid to answer phones, open letters, address envelopes, and reply to email. You think it was "a a personal reply from a Senator?" Not a chance.
their place. They're really well educated people, for the most part --- somewhere along the line they must have gotten that stuff about "considering that you are incorrect" and the rest.
Sure, but educated people still have to pander to get elected, and to get money to get elected. Civil liberties are anti-majoritarian by their very nature; they and legislatures are enemies.
While skimming their web pages looking for information, I found one or two senators and congress reps who actually offer PGP keys on their web pages!
So they have well-informed staffers. So what?
Senator Leahy, for one, is a vocal proponent of strong crypto. There is hope! Some of those people do see "the light" on this issue. It's a matter
Senator Leahy is also the fellow who brokered the Digital Telephony deal that ensures all are phone conversations are readily wiretappable by the Feds. And his wacky criminal copyright proposals. And what about his crypto bill that encourages a key escrow infrastructure? With "friends" like him who "see the light..."
him. I think a lot of them know they're being manipulated, but they get only a limited set of information from the "authoritative" defense and intelligence people who give them the "secret classified briefings", and
they simply can't confront the spooks because they think they'd get kicked from their positions of power in a few years. If they have in their possession a testimony that a defense and intelligence _scholar_ says that the spooks are wrong, they may be able to start turning the tide.
Not quite. Even if they have it, it is (a) difficult to vote against national security and child porn and (b) even more difficult to get anywhere in this town if you offend law enforcement, national security, or the defense communities. Let alone all three. Besides, they've had the NRC report for a year and a half. It's hardly in favor of mandatory key escrow rules, and it's co-authored by some spooks. Think that changed anything? Guess again.
Mostly, I just don't want to get nuked. I don't want the people in Washington to get nuked.
Hear, hear! Regards, Declan Washington, DC
On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:
In fact, I could see Tim May arguing if they understand the implications of crypto, they'll //definitely// vote the wrong way.
Yes, there I was possibly wrong in using M. May as an example in the "politicians aren't stupid / smart people must do good" line. Still, in the line of "let's not nuke Washington", it was appropriate.
Sure, you got //someone's// attention. From an $18,000-a-year
They authorize their junior staffers to use their name? Lame!
While skimming their web pages looking for information, I found one or two senators and congress reps who actually offer PGP keys on their web pages!
So they have well-informed staffers. So what?
It indicates they are concerned about the security of their communications. Now, the trick is to convince them that escrow hampers security of communications through the single point of failure problem. "Let's just say we want to avoid any Imperial entanglements." "Well, uh, that's the real trick, isn't it...and it's gonna cost you something extra."
Senator Leahy is also the fellow who brokered the Digital Telephony deal
Ah, more research is necessary. I printed his stuff but haven't read it yet. There was one, though, who even had a blue ribbon on their web page. I've forgotten who.
possession a testimony that a defense and intelligence _scholar_ says that the spooks are wrong, they may be able to start turning the tide.
Not quite. Even if they have it, it is (a) difficult to vote against national security and child porn and (b) even more difficult to get anywhere in this town if you offend law enforcement, national security, or the defense communities. Let alone all three.
I think a good tactic is to say to them "it's more difficult to vote against the vast majority of your constituents" and use examples like public opinion polls (are there any?) and California Legislature's SJR-29 (unanimous memorialization of Clinton and Congress to relax export controls). In related news, Vasconcellos, the author of SJR-29 and SB-1133 (a strong crypto promotion bill) is to announce soon if he will vie for the Democratic nominee for California Governor. He'd be up against current Lt. Governor Gray Davis, whose views contrast a little with Pete Wilson's but not too much.
Besides, they've had the NRC report for a year and a half. It's hardly in favor of mandatory key escrow rules, and it's co-authored by some spooks. Think that changed anything? Guess again.
Does anyone know who is behind this crap that the Empire's pushing on the committees? Louis Freeh is the only name I've heard. I've not heard Tenet's name mentioned in any of this. It would be interesting to research the other people involved, to try to find some dirt. Mark Hedges
On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, Mark Hedges wrote:
Sure, you got //someone's// attention. From an $18,000-a-year
They authorize their junior staffers to use their name? Lame!
Yeah, well, you probably got a form letter( they have lots of form letters). If it was an original reply, a middle-level or senior-level staffer okayed it.
It indicates they are concerned about the security of their communications. Now, the trick is to convince them that escrow hampers security of communications through the single point of failure problem.
No, it indicates they want to appear to be friends of the Net so they can pick up some bucks from lobbyists and high tech firms.
Ah, more research is necessary. I printed his stuff but haven't read it yet. There was one, though, who even had a blue ribbon on their web page. I've forgotten who.
Votes count more than 10K GIFs.
I think a good tactic is to say to them "it's more difficult to vote against the vast majority of your constituents" and use examples like public opinion polls (are there any?) and California Legislature's SJR-29 (unanimous memorialization of Clinton and Congress to relax export controls).
As many have pointed out it depends on the way the polls is phrased. "Should convicted child molesters have unbreakable crypto?" Ban it now! As for the SJR-29, your do have a good point. The tide is turning. But it'll take years, and the battle is happening in Congress now. Defeat for crypto-proponents is at hand...
Does anyone know who is behind this crap that the Empire's pushing on the committees? Louis Freeh is the only name I've heard. I've not heard Tenet's name mentioned in any of this. It would be interesting to research the other people involved, to try to find some dirt.
The classified briefings include NSA, CIA, DEA, and FBI. Some are restricted, codeword-only. There are multiple levels. I've been finding out more but I'm working on a long-term article about this so I won't post anything now. -Declan
On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Yeah, well, you probably got a form letter( they have lots of form letters). If it was an original reply, a middle-level or senior-level staffer okayed it.
I think the latter was the case. I got lots of the form responses. This came 10 hours later and appeared hastily written. I feel special! Gosh, democracy really works! (I'm not saying it was a big deal.)
No, it indicates they want to appear to be friends of the Net so they can pick up some bucks from lobbyists and high tech firms. Votes count more than 10K GIFs.
This is why I invited y'all to call me a naive idiot --- it's this cynical stereotyping of politicians which I think more than anything obstructs one's own attempts to talk to them and induce change rationally. If you walk up to some random person in a bar supposing they're probably going to knock you flat, they probably will. If you walk up to them thinking they'll provide entertaining discussion on Heidegger, well, wait, umm... Anyway, you see my point. Of course, you're the guy who talks to the political community on a regular basis. Maybe they really are all clones programmed by the government...but I doubt that. It's a novel experience for me, so perhaps I haven't become jaded (realistic?). (Jade is (a) pretty (plant), though.) Question yourself, all y'all revolutionaries, what does the hopeless attitude get you? Adrenalin while you get mad and hop up and down? An excuse to use your A-K and pop a couple feds before they do the natural thing and shoot you down? "It was a very good day ... I didn't even have to use my A-K." Still, I bet the lobbyists and funders who spent so much time, effort, and coins on pushing SAFE and the rest of the (even somewhat) pro-crypto bills are feeling pretty hopeless right now. I don't blame them. I also don't want to sound sappy like little orphan Annie, shining with hope in the face of the end of the world, but there's always tomorrow.
I think a good tactic is to say to them "it's more difficult to vote against the vast majority of your constituents" and use examples like public opinion polls (are there any?) and California Legislature's SJR-29 (unanimous memorialization of Clinton and Congress to relax export controls).
As many have pointed out it depends on the way the polls is phrased. "Should convicted child molesters have unbreakable crypto?" Ban it now! As for the SJR-29, your do have a good point. The tide is turning. But it'll take years, and the battle is happening in Congress now. Defeat for crypto-proponents is at hand...
"Who writes the goddamn polls?" comes to mind. Yes, this is extremely unfortunate. I have been wondering if the unhealthy and unwholesome spam might be useful for this --- it would be cheap, and easy to collect survey information. Alternatively, there might be away to do that from a web page. Of course, people would have to go read the page. That would take some advertising. My guess is that banner ads on the Anonymizer probably are _too_ selectively biased --- we'd need a wide distribution. There's always spam for sending out "the real dirt" on stuff like Panama, Grenada, Iraq, CIA & money laundering & crack, the silent black helicopters, Santa Cruz Island, Waco, Ruby Ridge, illegal wiretaps, missing submarines, accidentally sold nuclear facilities, the memetics programming, and how much money gets spent on this stuff, then justification for either more extensive checks and balances or an unempowered, minimal government, and finally, a plan for how to collapse and rebuild the system without people getting hurt. I guess I would appreciate that more than spam selling spam software. Still, there's a question as to whether it would hurt or help "the cause" of informing the masses what's really going on. "National Security"? Do most people really have any idea about who and what is to be kept "secure"? Has anyone ever taken a poll which has questions stilted both one way and the other, just to see people say "I want X and not-X"? (ubergovernment)
I'm working on a long-term article about this so I won't post anything now.
I look forward to reading that piece. Mark Hedges
At 9:14 pm -0400 on 9/18/97, Steve Schear wrote:
I agree that Nuking D.C. would be a shame. Think of the Smithsonian and all those national treasures which would be destroyed.
And, of course, it would be a shameful waste of a perfectly good swamp, er, wetland. Ooooops! It *is* already. Never mind... Cheers, Bob Hettinga (Who wonders if Newt was really serious when he said that *all* the laws, including the EPA "wetland" confiscation policy, are now applicable to Congress... :-)) ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah@shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/
At 5:01 PM -0700 9/18/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
At 15:16 -0700 9/18/97, Mark Hedges wrote:
My problem with the "it's hopeless, politicians are idiots" approach is the same as my problem with Tim May's approach
Sure, not all DC politicans are idiots. Most are damn smart. All are cunning. But just because they understand the technology doesn't mean they're going to vote the right way.
In fact, I could see Tim May arguing if they understand the implications of crypto, they'll //definitely// vote the wrong way.
In fact, I _have_ argued exactly this point. Hoping that if only Congress spends more time learning about an issue, or that we educate them better, or that smarter people enter politics, is missing the entire point. The technologies we are promoting are the tools to undermine the State, make tax collection harder, and ensure that groups like White Aryan Resistance and Hamas and so on can thrive and link up globally, transnationally, and without government interference. In short, the stuff I've had in my .sig for the past five years. Democracy is the problem, not the solution. Thus, nothing Congress can do is good for our goals, except to get the fuck out of the way. And the best way to do that is for them to be paralyzed and confused. (This is why I favor feeding them disinformation, and even disrupting their computer and other systems. Get those burrowcrats spinning in their warrens.)
I got a personal reply from a Senator to whom I sent that last release (the one interviewing Michael Wilson of 7Pillars). It wasn't one of those autoresponders -- it just said "Thank you for your views" with bad text formatting. At least it did get someone's attention. It might be negative
Sure, you got //someone's// attention. From an $18,000-a-year just-out-of-college staffer who lives in a group house in Arlington, VA with three other people who gets paid to answer phones, open letters, address envelopes, and reply to email. You think it was "a a personal reply from a Senator?" Not a chance.
Declan echoes my cynicism. Oh, and the other thing those junior politician wannabees do is weigh the pro/con letters. (Which is why the Republican Right set up huge direct mail campaigns in the late 70s.) Politics is not the answer. --Tim May The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 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 Thu, 18 Sep 1997, Tim May wrote:
like White Aryan Resistance and Hamas and so on can thrive and link up
I see, well, whatever. Kinda makes me think maybe I'm wrong and should vote for cryptofascists. However, I won't, because I don't want the government looking over my shoulder. I think there are plenty of ways for people whose agenda is a good, peaceful world to organize against groups like WAR and CIA and Hamas and the rest, without having to legislate. I don't understand how you can judge which violent, fascist, oppressive group is the correct one to support. Did you know there are other groups who are not violent, fascist, or oppressive? Did you know that occasionally, violent, oppressive fascists have changed their minds? It is doubtful my words are not going to make any difference in the way you see the world, but I, like you, think escrow/recovery/wiretapping would not make the world a better place --- kind of like how looking closely at a particle makes it behave differently than it would otherwise. I don't think the national security folk have "a good, peaceful world" in mind for anyone. They have in mind a world in which a small, exclusive group of people can use, take from and manipulate the masses. All of these groups do. The history of violent revolution, even in the name of the people, is filled with the leaders of the revolution assuming the same damn imbalanced positions of power which were there before. They might call it a President instead of a King, or maybe Prime Minister or Premier. The Lords might be the Regional Governors, or Senators, or Counsellors. There might even be different people in those positions from time to time, even elected by will of the people. But it's not the person --- it's the position! The position crafts the person into a pre-formed caricature. Its history, its image...it is the Throne which makes the Pharoah a God, not the Family, or the Decree. It is the Throne which makes the decisions, and it follows instincts of self-perpetuation like any other entity. Do you want to sit on a throne? GAK, GAP, SMACK, CRACK. MEME SCHEME SCHMEME. Consider first your true objective and who you bring to war before you aim and fire the memetic cannon...or the musket. They all seem to fit into the same category --- Hamas, Infada, the secular Algerian "Ninjas", the Federal urban assault task forces, DEA thugs who raid the homes of innocent people, etc. They're all fighting, and it seems like people pick up any side of an issue just so they can fight. Why? Consider the addiction to the feeling that comes from getting angry at those fuckers over there on that other side and how it would feel so good to blow their heads off. Notice how the feeling moves around your torso. Instead of moving it up to your head where it makes your jaw vibrate, try moving it around...out the center of your chest through your back...up into wing shapes behind your body. Try a tail, too. We've still got some neurons for it.
Democracy is the problem, not the solution. Thus, nothing Congress can do
We don't live in a democracy. Do I get to vote on HR-695? Do you? No. Has there ever been a democracy? Not really. Do you know what democracy means? Do you see through the lies they put forth saying that we live in a "democracy"? Do you actually think we live in anything close to the word? Rule by the people, of the people, and for the people. If they don't want rules, so be it. If they want to say, gosh, killing people is lame, send that guy to jail, so be it. If they want to say, all people shall be named "BOB" and partake of the Dispensation of Slack, so be it. Thing is, WE THE PEOPLE have never actually had the opportunity. We've always been too nervous about getting our heads blown off, because so many humans are paranoid, power-hungry and trigger-happy, and because the ones in power positions are almost always paranoid, power-hungry, and trigger-happy, and now have nukes. So you want a massively plural nuclear weapon based power model. You don't need to promote cryptography in the name of that. It's going to happen anyway --- it's already here. Missing Israeli subs, black market Soviet subs with full crews at the collapse, unused nuclear facilities "accidentally" sold as scrap metal to the private sector, the whole bit. I hope mutual assured destruction still works. Mark Hedges
On Fri, 19 Sep 1997, Mark Hedges wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, Tim May wrote:
like White Aryan Resistance and Hamas and so on can thrive and link up
I see, well, whatever. Kinda makes me think maybe I'm wrong and should vote for cryptofascists. However, I won't, because I don't want the government looking over my shoulder. I think there are plenty of ways for people whose agenda is a good, peaceful world to organize against groups like WAR and CIA and Hamas and the rest, without having to legislate. I don't understand how you can judge which violent, fascist, oppressive group is the correct one to support. Did you know there are other groups who are not violent, fascist, or oppressive? Did you know that occasionally, violent, oppressive fascists have changed their minds?
...
I don't think the national security folk have "a good, peaceful world" in mind for anyone. They have in mind a world in which a small, exclusive group of people can use, take from and manipulate the masses. All of these groups do.
The history of violent revolution, even in the name of the people, is filled with the leaders of the revolution assuming the same damn imbalanced positions of power which were there before. They might call it a President instead of a King, or maybe Prime Minister or Premier. The
...
They all seem to fit into the same category --- Hamas, Infada, the secular Algerian "Ninjas", the Federal urban assault task forces, DEA thugs who raid the homes of innocent people, etc. They're all fighting, and it seems like people pick up any side of an issue just so they can fight. Why?
Let me agree and go further. I believe in liberty (which encompasses the issues around cryptography) because I believe in human dignity. But that also forces me to believe in the right to life - Jefferson listed it before liberty in the declaration, and if you don't have any other reason to agree, just note that dead people don't have any use for liberty. People are deprived of property before liberty, and liberty before life in any system that I would consider just. But then I think about what is liberty and justice and good and evil instead of demonizing whoever is doing something I don't happen to like at the moment. I don't defend any of those evils that would be made easier by the presence of crypto, nor those who would destroy liberty to save it, on either side of the debate. You don't destroy something you consider precious. I condemn anyone who takes innocent life - be it the FBI at Waco or McVeigh at OKC. It is the act that is evil, and the intent or negligence of the actor that makes it so, not which political side the actor is on. If crypto is banned in the US, there will still be some country where it is legal - you might not like the economy or the climate, but you would still have crypto and various other liberties. The generations preceeding our founders moved here because they didn't have liberty in their homeland. The life was harder, but they considered some specific freedoms more important than the attraction of business in cities. Even our Declaration of Independence doesn't call for the assasination of anyone in Parliment or King George (and there were terrorist plots in english history to do exactly this), but merely separation - in one sense merely restoring the separation which was the reason their ancestors came to the new world. There was another revolution shortly after ours, in France. But was France better after the revolution during the reign of terror or during the reign of Louis?
A Savoyard who lived through the French Revolution, Joseph de Maistre, writes: "And you, mad philosophes . . . apostles of tolerance and humanity; you . . . who extol the progress of intelligence and reason: Leave your tombs. Walk among the many corpses . . . Your writings are in the pockets of the tyrants . . . In the name of virtue the most horrible thievery is committed; in the name of humanity two million men perish; in the name of liberty a thousand Bastilles are built . . . They left you only a moment, Diderot, to sign the order for mass drownings." I have been disturbed about the increasing tone of violence of the various posts. Didn't like what happened at Waco? Then lets be the very terrorists of the four cypher horsemen and kill even more children. Don't like voluntary ratings? Then suggest posting kiddie porn and labeling it as G rated. Maybe China will nuke most of California - it may be an accident at their new port. Or one of the cults will release a biological agent. Or even a severe earthquake. Should I shed a tear then? Even the French philosophers taught tolerance and humanity and would have abhored the results. Since even the intent is now bloodlust, first for Reno and Freeh, then for everyone in the vacinity of Washington DC, then for anyone who ever worked for the Feds... then for the liberals who supported civil but not economic rights, and then the conservatives who supported economic but not civil rights. Don't work on better ciphers, see if you can design a faster guillotine. And where does it stop? When all the cities are burning? When the people who don't understand technology or how you have their liberty in mind get guns and kill anyone they see? When everything breaks down and you are starving or dying of a disease you need technology to treat? When all the plants making the chips and fiber used for the internet are destroyed? How many incinerated corpses will you need at your hands and those of your diciples before you are satisfied that liberty is finally restored? And then will you worry about restoring other fundamental rights such as life? And if you care nothing for life, why should you expect anyone to respect liberty? Starting a revolution might not be easy, but controlling it is harder and ending it can be impossible. And our economy and technology depends on integration and cooperation to a much higher degree than at any other time. I may be able to be an individual on the internet, but I cannot build a computer starting with sand, copper and steel. --- reply to tzeruch - at - ceddec - dot - com ---
participants (6)
-
Declan McCullagh -
Mark Hedges -
nospam-seesignature＠ceddec.com -
Robert Hettinga -
Steve Schear -
Tim May