Re: more RANTING about NSA-friendly cpunks

["Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>]

[the NSA]
>is sufficiently well-funded where they can concentrate on pursuing their =
>case against a target, a company or individual is engaged in creating =
>their income at the same time that they must also use a portion of these =
>resources to defend themselves in court (as well as defend their public =
>image).  =20

@$%^&*
I cannot believe how my simple message is being warped out of all 
recognition. I said some very specific things, and it seems that everyone
reads their own fears into what I write. well, that is the nature of
fear I have been pointing out-- only loosely related to reality. I 
reiterate to you:

1. I am NOT advocating that lone individuals defy the ITAR per se. if you
recall, I was lamenting that no CORPORATIONS so far have the balls
to challenge the ITAR (such as MS, Netscape etc.). these companies
already have large legal departments and strong experience fighting
the government on other issues. yet when it comes to taking an offensive
stance rather than a defensive one, they cower in the shadows.

what *really* exasperated me was the idea that if MS even "signs" outside
crypto packages, they would be "prohibited" from "exporting" these
signatures. this is OUTRAGEOUS and no rational person would submit to
such imbecility. I lose *extreme* amounts of respect for *anyone* who
either submits or even rationalizes this supposed system?

the above is tantamount to LETTING THE NSA MAKE LAWS ANY TIME THEY WANT.
are there any laws on the books that talk about signing foreign packages?
OF COURSE NOT. and if they were, THEY SHOULD BE GOTTEN RID OF IMMEDIATELY.

the NSA has NO LAWMAKING AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER. but the cryptographic 
community is VOLUNTARILY GIVING THEM THAT POWER because of Fear, 
Uncertainty, Doubt.

2.  I pointed out that even if individuals DO challenge the ITAR, they
are NOT LIKELY TO BE LEFT ALONE. witness Bernstein getting support from
EFF, etc.  there are a lot of lawers and interests that are just
DYING for an opportunity to fight the ITAR in court. I mean, haven't you
ever seen those lists of companies that sign letters against the ITAR?
can you imagine them contributing only a tiny fraction of their legal
departments to a genuine case? this was another of my strong points:
the idea that it is a lone struggle against the ITAR for anyone is
*not*correct*. it is demonstrably false based on the number of companies
and organizations such as EFF that have vociferously voiced opposition.

3. you assume that ignoring the ITAR leads to prosecution. THERE IS
NO PROOF OF THIS. this is the main point of my writing. what if writing
crypto to heart's content, even for individuals, leads to no prosecution?
then your entire blah-blah-blah article about the court system and how
the poor individual is powerless to use it is POINTLESS. that has been
my main point: it is possible that individuals will NEVER be prosecuted
under the ITAR crypto sections. all the boneheads are suggesting that
"oh, Zimmermann is just an anomaly. they will really get the *next*
guy". but when does your imagination end? your own imagination is what
is determining your reality, not the reality! if Zimmermann isn't prosecuted,
nor anyone associated with him, WHO IS GOING TO BE PROSECUTED?

>
>It would be a noble project to challenge something like the ITAR in a =
>court of law, where the issues and flaws of the government's attitudes & =
>methods could be brought out in detail, dashed to the ground by =
>brilliant reasoning and argument, winning a battle not only for privacy, =
>but for the lofty goal of individual sovereignty.   But it would take a =
>lot of time, some very able talents, and a lot of cash; most lone =
>cryptographers would not be able to do these two things at once (making =
>a living while also fighting the dragon).

I reiterate: no where in my ranting did I suggest a lone person challenge
the ITAR: that is the CYPHERPUNK PREJUDICE that things of significance
are only accomplished by individuals. indeed, this mindset plays *directly*
into the arms of the "enemy", the NSA. remember, defeat is a psychological
aspect as much as a real one. the NSA does not have to win, they only
have to make you think you have *lost*, which is the pervasive feeling on
this list, EVEN AFTER *nothing* happened to Zimmermann!!  "oh, poor 
individual me, who am I to challenge the NSA, they have all the power,
and I am just a lone sheep out in the wilderness"... 

>It's easy for you, Vlad, to chastise others for being cowardly, when you =
>have nothing to lose (and only incendiarism to offer). 

I am not so much "chastising anyone for cowardice". I have not used that
word at all. you introduced it. what I am criticizing is our *attitudes*
that are bringing about the very situations that we supposedly are 
in opposition to. I am criticizing the *fear* that is a strong undercurrent
of all dialogue and sentiments here. cowardice is as much a state of
mind as it is a lack of action. I am not so much criticizing the latter
as the former. I have less problem with people not doing anything, than
with them using FALSE REASONS to justify their inactivity. if you are going
to be a sheep, at least be honest with yourself that you are a sheep!!

 why is it so controversial for me to say, YOUR FEARS
ARE COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO YOUR OWN AGENDA. why is this so incomprehensible?
I have gotten endless mail from people who don't have a clue, and seem
to continue to insist: OUR FEARS ARE JUSTIFIED. as long as you think that
way, you are *self*defeating*. it is a self-fulfilling prophecy!!

even after NOTHING happens to Zimmermann, the sheep are not comforted,
because the sheep can *never* be comforted, no matter what happens.

 Those who are =
>enjoined to take action must calculate how much they can afford to =
>invest in such an expensive venture.   You asked me in an earlier post =
>how I could distinguish just any poster to the list from someone who =
>might be an "agent provocateur".   By this:  they only provoke action =
>from others - encouraging, cajoling, shaming, pushing them into =
>thoughtless action, without themselves taking on any of the risk =
>involved, without themselves facing any of the dangers but only getting =
>others to do so.

give me a break. perhaps you think that I am trying to stop the spread
of crypto? it would be quite ironic if you dismissed the most effective
approach possible as that coming from an "agent provocateur". but it
would be quite fitting. frankly, I increasingly wonder why I am wasting
my time with sheep.  (your own mindset above reveals your own "people can
only challenge the government alone" prejudice/mindest that is 
self-destructive to the agenda of crypto spread).

of course I am not asking for "thoughtless action". that's ridiculous. I
have been ranting against THOUGHTLESS FEAR which is ENDEMIC on this list.
I have pointed out why there is no proof that fear is justified, but the
sheep will have none of it. fine, just stop sending me email and posting
pretending you are NOT SHEEP.

>It would be great to have a show of fireworks in a court of law.   But =
>(and I don't mean to begin a long thread of discussion on this) I myself =
>would wonder why the Supreme Court wouldn't already be defending us from =
>the attacks against basic ideals like personal privacy. 

because THEY CANNOT DO SO UNTIL A LAW IS CHALLENGED IN COURT!!! @##$%^&*!!!

  There are =
>already in existence a body of "authorities" assigned to the task of =
>preserving the Constitution, educated in Law and the principles for =
>which this nation stands.   They are the ones whom I would address with =
>inquiries over negligence & lilly-livered, yellow-bellied =
>non-involvement.

THAT'S ABSOLUTELY FALSE. they have no power to strike down laws prior
to a challenge. can do NOTHING until a law is CHALLENGED!!
and that's what I'm ADVOCATING!!

  I guess someone has to bring the matter to their =
>attention, bringing up charges of injustice for their wisdom to cogitate =
>upon.  

all I can say is that this sentence seems to bespeak a lack of understanding
of how the supreme court works and how a law is determined to be 
unconstitutional. it suggests you think these justices have some kind
of independent review power over laws, prior to court cases?

as long as you live your life thinking that YOUR FREEDOM is SOMEONE ELSE'S
JOB, you are going to LOSE IT BIGTIME.

 Nevertheless, it is to them, who are in charge of maintaining =
>consistency to the ideals within The Constitution, that I would ask, =
>"why have you forsaken us"?

oh, brother. it is you who have forsaken yourself.