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.
>
> http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html

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

(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

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

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