[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Freedom and security
From: IN%"[email protected]" 1-MAY-1996 10:34:38.08
To: IN%"[email protected]"
CC: IN%"[email protected]"
Subj: RE: Freedom and security
Received: from toad.com by mbcl.rutgers.edu (PMDF #12194) id
<[email protected]>; Wed, 1 May 1996 10:09 EDT
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id EAA25573 for
cypherpunks-outgoing; Wed, 1 May 1996 04:56:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from osceola.gate.net ([email protected] [199.227.0.18]) by
toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA25568 for <[email protected]>; Wed,
1 May 1996 04:56:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from miafl2-7.gate.net (miafl2-7.gate.net [199.227.2.134]) by
osceola.gate.net (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id HAA41660; Wed,
1 May 1996 07:55:34 -0400
Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 07:55:25 -0400
From: [email protected] (Jim Ray)
Subject: RE: Freedom and security
Sender: [email protected]
To: [email protected] (CyberAngels Director : Colin Gabriel Hatcher)
Cc: [email protected]
Message-id: <[email protected]>
X-Envelope-to: eallensmith
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: [email protected]
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
CyberAngels Director Colin Gabriel Hatcher wrote:
<snips>
>>...Freedom does not increase through more laws.
>
>Nor does freedom increase through less laws or no laws.
You have gotta be kidding me, but let's start by differentiating
among laws. I'm a crypto-minarchist, not a crypto-anarchist, so
I still have hope for some (MUCH less) government. I think laws
against murder are good, and lead to more safety for those not in
jail. I think laws against "consensual crimes" are bad, and lead
to government/police corruption extending all the way to the top
[see sigfile]. When I have to say, "where's the victim?" it's a
shitty law. Many laws fail my test.
> Freedom increases
>as respect and care for one another increases.
This is what I called flowery rhetoric in the last post.
> Meanwhile, since we do not
>live in utopia, all societies at a certain level of economic development
>and of a certain size of population require law and law enforcement to
>protect citizens from predators.
This is what astounds me, the advocates of more government always
focus on crimes WITH obvious victims during debates. Once power
is achieved, the victimless crime laws get written. I have said
I do want murderers, and even some (not all) pedophiles, in jail.
If a child pornographer chooses to visit my page and commits a
thoughtcrime involving my babypictures, I say leave him alone. If
he commits a real crime with an unwilling victim I say punish him
even more than the present government punishes him. Libertarians,
when we achieve political power, will find ourselves with abundent
jail cells left over from the tax-and-spend drugwar to put real
criminals (the ones who have an individual victim) in.
>[...flowery rhetoric] Does anyone really doubt the extent of State
>control and power across the Net?
There are certainly enough statists who feel a need to increase it.
>
> >.... laws only breed more laws, which always lead to
>>less freedom.
>
>I disagree with this statement. I do not believe that laws breed more laws
>nor that laws lead to less freedom. I believe bad laws compromise freedom
>(eg CDA) while good laws protect freedom.
I am heartened by your opposition to the CDA (though I did not
notice a Cyberangels voice in the debate/protest leading up to
this abominable law...) but I must point out that you offer no
good test, like my "where's the victim?" test, to differentiate
good laws from bad ones. As to more laws leading to less freedom
I stand by my words. Go down to any law library and have a look
at the Code of Federal Regulations. As wordy, poorly-written laws
proliferate, we all become "criminals," subject to the arbitrary
power of the state's prosectors. When the state prosecutors are
a partisan Democrat followed by a partisan Republican, and the
"criminals" are high-ranking Democrats and Republicans, you end
up with a lesser respect for all laws, even the good ones. Again,
see my sigfile. Now imagine the Libertarian party was doing the
same drug-smuggling...Would the feds [let alone the media] be
so silent? I doubt it.
>Cryptography enhances and protects privacy, which does not inevitably lead
>to greater security. Security for the sender, yes, in that no one else can
>read the message, but security for the Community?
I find it worrisome that you capitalize the word, despite my rant
involving Director Freeh. I repeat: The community is made up of
individuals.
> Doesnt that depend what
>the message said? The technology itself is neutral.
Therefore, I guess, the "Community" must forcibly take my key
to make sure that last PGPmessage wasn't child porn, right?
It is important to make sure I don't commit thoughtcrime.
> Child pornographers
>encrypt their hard drives so that law enforcement cannot gather crime
>evidence - that is certainly a state of greater security for the
>pornographer, but it does not improve our Community, and as child
>pornography increases, the law is by definition broken more and more, and
>so the Community becomes less free than before. And that's not the tyranny
>of government but the tryanny of criminals.
Look. I don't care if some old man beats off to the tune of baby
pictures. There is no victim. If he finds a victim, toss him in
the slammer, or kill him. Right now, the tax-and-spend drugwar is
creating a revolving-door justice system when it comes to victim
crimes, and the people (naturally) disrespect the law. Respect
for ALL law, good and bad, is poisoned by this foolishness and
when combined with a disrespect for the historical power of
juries to nullify shitty laws, and ignorance of history.
>I do in fact support cryptography for personal security, not least because
>I can ensure that my messages are authenticated. CyberAngels PGP public
>key will be up on our new website opening very soon. I've had enough of
>people forging my email.
<sarcasm on>
Oh, why bother with this self-help, vigilante solution to the
need for authentication. Why not just pass another law? PGP is
a pain-in-the-ass to install and learn. I'm sure the Congress
and President Clinton (who has also experienced e-mail forgery)
would support it, and then you won't have to bother learning
PGP or reading that awful PGPdoc1 & PGPdoc2.
</sarcasm>
>"Two people may disagree, but
>that does not mean that one of them is evil"
>I think it should be legal for me to sell my body for sex, or put
>any substance into it I choose, because _I_ own my body.
An excellent example to use with regards to the CyberAngels, given that
the Guardian Angels are very definitely pro-drug-war. This is informative about
the CyberAngels, especially considering their association with SafeSurf. Their
parental-censorship system includes the ability to filter out many articles
disagreeing with their position on the Drug War - namely those citing that
certain presently illegal substances (e.g., marijuana) are much less dangerous
than the government wishes people to believe. While I do not approve of minors
using addictive drugs (including nicotine), enabling their parents to cut off
political speech of which the parent and the CyberAngels disapprove is hardly
an increase in the real freedom of anyone.
-Allen