Re: Why Leahy is No Friend of Ours

[attila <attila@primenet.com>]

** Reply to note from Stanton McCandlish <mech@eff.org> 05/04/96  5:03pm -0700 
 
= To: tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May) 
= Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 17:03:31 -0700 (PDT) 
=  
= Timothy C. May typed: 
=  
= > But no Congressman who co-sponsors such legislation as the "National 
= > Wiretap Initiative," with its "1% of the engineering capacity" requirements 
= > and other such Big Brother Surveillance State clauses, is a friend of ours. 
=  
= No legislator at all is our friend.  The legislature is a gateway - we push  
= an issue thru it into the politico-legal system, and other groups push  
= their own issues back through the gateway at us.  Whoever pushes more, and 
= times their pushing with when the gate is open, wins. 
=  
= This isn't about making chums.  Leahy is a gatekeeper, like any other  
= legislator. We don't have to like him, just get him to open the gate for us, 
= and close it for our opponents. 
=  

        _all_ politicians face reelection, all politicians must raise 
    money --special interest groups control large blocks of money, or as
    Mark Twain put it:

        "Congress is the only natural criminal class in America."

    or Will Rogers:

        "Circus?  Why would I want to go to the circus when Congress is 
        in session?"

        the Federal government as a whole certainly is not the friend of
    the people --we have not had a free election since Lincoln in 1860, 
    with the possible exception of JFK, whose only true claim to
    greatness was issuing Treasury notes in May '63 --which circulated
    only until he was assassinated.

        how many _truly_ "populist" presidents have we elected? 
    Jackson, Lincoln, JFK?  Despite the immense fortune (from Joe's
    questionable endeavors); the social connections, even if he was
    Irish-Catholic; and some "ideals" (not necessarily mutually mine),
    JFK was _not_ a product of the establishment, nor the "real" 
    political machine until he "captured" it.  I was a _paid_
    "consultant" in the JFK '60 campaign, and again for Teddy in '62
    --no amount of pain will acquire further discussion of political
    campaign ethics....

        "mech" is correct, IMHO, in the gatekeeper analogy. Therefore, 
    *personal* villification of our "enemies" is counterproductive to 
    our efforts.  unicorn stated:

                "Mind you, I never said Leahy was a giant in the 
            movement for crypto and privacy interests, just that I 
            was glad someone had a clue."

    is not our task to educate the Congress critter?  Is it not better 
    to deal with the critter if he, or his staff, is at least aware of 
    the issues?  again, unicorn further stated v/v Leahy:

                "His staff are some of the most astute people on the
            hill technologically.  That their view might tend to the
            statist side disturbs me, but I wasn't talking about their 
            politics. On the hill a competent and fairly reasonable 
            enemy is much less a problem than an incompetent publicity 
            seeker."

        generally speaking, communication is _not_ facilitated by 
    punching your intended correspondent in the nose. extremist demands 
    are dismissed as such.  maybe I might prefer to clean the house that 
    greed and control built; but, practically, we either work within the
    system as erudite and rational "educators," or the class is ignored, 
    if not labelled "dangerously subversive" --which means we will be 
    first on the roundup....

        however, all of the above ignores reality:  the Federal Reserve 
    Bank, a quasi-government agency with private owners, represents the 
    power. JFK recognized the inherent impossibility of debt reduction 
    when even your interest is borrowed.  The Fed also represents the 
    international big money pool, and the means of historical 
    revisionism and the consolidation of power.

        the "ruling class" underestimated the explosion of the Net, just
    like China underestimated the fax. Now the ruling class is playing 
    catch up, and attempting to sandbag the Net --they probably will not 
    succeed as the Net will go underground around the world --technology
    is moving faster than regulations.  they may kill mainstream 
    information privacy, but the innovation of the underground will 
    outpace their regulations.  Secondly, regulations which are despised
    are ignored and confronted --sure, a few high profile cases will go 
    forward for intimidation --was PKZ granted "Constitutional due 
    process?" --or should I phrase that: "...any due process?"

        unless we are willing to patiently and persistently educate the 
    governing class, no matter how "ignorant" they may appear from our 
    perspective of inalienable rights, the "enlightened" position is 
    dismissed as revolutionary excess, and labelled subversive to the 
    US government.  --and, not only must we educate the governing class,
    but we must educate the people, and the people's media to prevent 
    the governed from surrendering their inalienable rights for a little
    security.

            "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little 
               temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

                        --Ben Franklin (Historical Review of PA -1759)

    and, the bottom line is:

              "It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen
                  from falling into error; 
               it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government 
                  from falling into error."

                             --Robert H. Jackson (1892-1954), U.S. Judge




--
Overseeing first-rate programmers is a managerial challenge 
  roughly comparable to herding cats.

cc: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
    Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
    Cypherpunks <cypherpunks@toad.com>