Feinstein wants controls on Internet, Books

One of my senators, Senator Dianne Feinstein, is now arguing on CNN for
controls on information put on the Internet, on censorship of books and
articles describing how pipe bombs work, and for making it easier to get
wiretaps against those suspected of committing thought crimes.

One or two more major incidents on top of the recent ones (World Trade
Center, Oklahoma City, Dharan, TWA 800, and Olympic Village) and I suspect
Congress will simply vote to repeal the Bill of Rights and just be done
with this whole experiment in liberty.

--Tim May

Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software!
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
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,
Licensed Ontologist         | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

Sorry, me again; I can't resist the irony:

Timothy C. May wrote:
>
> One of my senators, Senator Dianne Feinstein, is now arguing on CNN for
> controls on information put on the Internet ...

There's a diagram of a pipe bomb on the CNN web site, in the story about
the horrible things.

______c_____________________________________________________________________
Mike M Nally * Tiv^H^H^H IBM * Austin TX    * For the time being,
       m5@tivoli.com * m101@io.com          *    
      <URL:http://www.io.com/~m101>         *    three heads and eight arms.

Timothy C. May wrote:
> 
> One of my senators, Senator Dianne Feinstein, is now arguing on CNN for
> controls on information put on the Internet, on censorship of books and
> articles describing how pipe bombs work ...

I can only assume that anybody who reaches adulthood without incidentally
learning how to make a bomb, or who at least becomes acquainted with
someone else who they can confidently assume knows how to help out in
a pinch, is merely an idiot.  It appears that Ms. Feinstein herself has
no idea how to make a bomb, and that therefore she assumes it's a monstrous
cabal of psychotic murderers that passes this sort of information around 
via illicit texts and, lately, the despicable Internet.

Who's never read a spy novel or muder mystery with (possibly bogus, though
at least vaguely accurate) bomb-building hints?  Who's grown up with
violent American television and film without absorbing at least a shred
of information regarding bombs?   Is it really possible that a marginally
intelligent person could find themselves needing to build a bomb but
have no idea how to proceed?

Either that, or Ms. Feinstein assumes (depressingly, perhaps correctly) 
that her constituency is itself so collectively idiotic that they'll 
accept such activity as good work done for their benefit.

I doubt the latter.  Ms. Feinstein has never in public speech given me
intuitive feelings that she's at all a devious, subtly manipulative person.
I think she's an honest idiot who turns the fortune of her political power
to causes she believes to be right.  It's infuriating.

So infuriating, in fact, that I'll vent a bit more.  How effective does
Ms. Feinstein imagine a ban on bomb-building information might be?  Those
who've already learned can't be expected to forget, so there'll be a 
period of time during which today's crop of crazed bombers work the
urges out of their systems.  There'll be the determined traffic in 
illegal dog-eared volumes traded secretly among those awful militia 
members in all the "scary" states between Lake Tahoe and the Potomac.
Given the rarity of bombings today, can anyone honestly expect that even
the most draconian crack-down on information will turn back the clock 
to the days before virtually every adolescent male knew the raw 
ingredients of gunpowder?

Finally, note that you'd better hurry and order your video copy of the 
old Star Trek episode "Arena"...


[ ... time to mellow out; I'm switching from coffee to beer. ]
______c_____________________________________________________________________
Mike M Nally * Tiv^H^H^H IBM * Austin TX    * For the time being,
       m5@tivoli.com * m101@io.com          *    
      <URL:http://www.io.com/~m101>         *    three heads and eight arms.

Mike McNally writes:
> 
> Either that, or Ms. Feinstein assumes (depressingly, perhaps correctly) 
> that her constituency is itself so collectively idiotic that they'll 
> accept such activity as good work done for their benefit.

Of course.  She'll have "done something" about the "terrorisim problem".
Never mind that it's completely ineffective and restrictive of
civil liberties.  Most Americans don't particularly care about
civil liberties as long as their day-to-day life runs smoothly.
Especially if it's other people's civil liberties that are
restricted.

The media hypes the terrorisim threat because it helps sell air
time and newspapers.  Fear sells.  How many of you were glued to the tube
for the dismal "coverage" of the Olympic Park bombing?  I was, and I
usually hate TV.  Fear is a powerful attention-getter, almost at good
as sex.  Since we're not allowed to have sex in the media, guess what
we get?

The articicially-generated climate of fear creates a reaction among
the populace.  Witness the countless studies that show that people's
fear of being a crime victim has increased markedly in the last 10 or
15 years while actual crime statistics have for the most part gone down.
The politicians have picked up on this reaction with a vengance, being
"tough on crime" is a sure way to get (re)elected.

 
> So infuriating, in fact, that I'll vent a bit more.  How effective does
> Ms. Feinstein imagine a ban on bomb-building information might be?  Those
> who've already learned can't be expected to forget, so there'll be a 
> period of time during which today's crop of crazed bombers work the
> urges out of their systems.

[..]

DiFi and crowd isn't thinking of how their information crackdown would
actually work.  They probably don't really care if it'll be effective or
not.  The point is to "do something" right now about the "terrible
problem".  That something just has to sound like it'll be effective; no
one will find out if it works or not for 10 or 15 years, which is an
eternity for politicians (and most constituents).


-- 
Eric Murray  ericm@lne.com  ericm@motorcycle.com  http://www.lne.com/ericm
PGP keyid:E03F65E5 fingerprint:50 B0 A2 4C 7D 86 FC 03  92 E8 AC E6 7E 27 29 AF

Timothy C. May writes:
> 
> 
> One of my senators, Senator Dianne Feinstein, is now arguing on CNN for
> controls on information put on the Internet, on censorship of books and
> articles describing how pipe bombs work, and for making it easier to get
> wiretaps against those suspected of committing thought crimes.
> 
> One or two more major incidents on top of the recent ones (World Trade
> Center, Oklahoma City, Dharan, TWA 800, and Olympic Village) and I suspect
> Congress will simply vote to repeal the Bill of Rights and just be done
> with this whole experiment in liberty.

Yes, but it won't be nearly that blatant.  In classic Orewllian
Doublespeak, it'll be called the "Terrorist Victims Bill
of Rights and Freedom of Information Act" and will merely
'abridge' the Bill of Rights with the "right" of the government
to investigate, wiretap, arrest and detain without trial
any suspected "terrorists" and "drug kingpins".

Cancelling the Bill of Rights would be too obvious, and probably
isn't the outright goal of any but a few extremists in government.
Rather, the majority of bureaucrats/elected officials want to
redefine the Rights to only apply to "good citizens", for somewhat
varying definitions of "good".  "They" won't suddenly stage a fascist
coup, instead it will (and has been) a long step-by-step process.
I don't think that most policy-makers are even aware
of what they're doing (DiFi certainly isn't) they're
just responding to preceived public pressure and trying
to stay elected.

The ugliest phrase in American lexicon: "There oughta be a law".



-- 
Eric Murray  ericm@lne.com  ericm@motorcycle.com  http://www.lne.com/ericm
PGP keyid:E03F65E5 fingerprint:50 B0 A2 4C 7D 86 FC 03  92 E8 AC E6 7E 27 29 AF

Timothy C. May wrote:
> One of my senators, Senator Dianne Feinstein, is now arguing on CNN for
> controls on information put on the Internet, on censorship of books and
> articles describing how pipe bombs work, and for making it easier to get
> wiretaps against those suspected of committing thought crimes.

I just thought about this: obviously (witness the CDA which is much less
notorious than this proposition)  none of what she suggests would ever
work technically and pass the courts legally.

She may be dumb enough not to realize that BUT I think that she realizes
that too.

Therefore we can logically conclude that she does it just to score
some immediate points with angry electorate.

igor