NSL's [was TrueCrypt]
grarpamp at gmail.com
Fri May 30 16:44:38 PDT 2014
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Cathal Garvey
<cathalgarvey at cathalgarvey.me> wrote:
> The problem as I see it is that those who have chosen to battle NSLs on
> constitutional grounds have undermined their own assertion of
> constitutional right by keeping the NSLs secret while they await their
> day in court.
> If you believe you have a constitutional right not to be bullied by
> secret police and being forced to keep that a secret, then you should
> just come out and say what's happening. That way, the highly political
> court that's going to try to indict you anyway will at least have to
> operate under public scrutiny and criticism.
All true. And it's not as if the penalty, even if considered criminal,
would be anything more than trivial . Further, if you are a business
owner who is judged against
- personally, you are your own employer so nobody can fire you.
- business license pulled, liquidate and sell it back to yourself.
A jury would likely "you're here for publishing this? Lol, go home."
The actual risk seems rather low. I'd do it just for the fame.
 Feel free to supply links to US code.
> Of course, the rational thing to do is to keep quiet and do as
> instructed by the stasi
Only if you are certain you will win 'soon'. History shows waiting
yields a long hard bloody road.
> or to flee the country to somewhere that
> recognises amnesty from history's largest and best armed superpower.
> Good luck with the latter.
The US isn't doing so hot right now in the world reputation
dept, so your odds of washing up on anyones shore and
being welcomed to stay for protesting your dissatifaction,
are probably approaching good.
More information about the cypherpunks