a retort + a comment + a question = [RANT]

[SUCRUM22_at_INDY-ADP@smtp-gw.cv62.navy.mil]

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 tim may wrote:
 >"...and that discussions of other topics bother you should be a clear 
 >indication you're probably on the wrong list."
     
        uh, that's _why_ i am on this list...
     
 >"Having a "navy.mil" domain probably is another reason, unless you 
 >are only hear to monitor our discussions of using cryptography to 
 >undermine the state, to liberate military secrets with BlackNet and 
 >the Information Liberation Front, and to punish the millions of 
 >those in the military-industrial complex who have so richly earned 
 >their eventual punishments.
        military secrets, eh?  tell me something mr may, what secrets 
 have you uncovered in your undaunting quest to expose those corrupt 
 little guys in uniform?  mr may - i serve in the US Navy so you don't 
 have to, and as much as i sometimes _don't_ like it, i will always, 
 _always_ love the navy for what she gave me.  one of the reasons you 
 sit at your terminal drinking your coffe and ranting on and on, is 
 because men and women like myself happen to think that what the 
 military does for the US is a good thing.  i skipped collage (don't 
 ask why) after graduating early from HS to enlist in the navy.  
 keeping you free to bitch is why i am here.  never forget that the 
 freedom you enjoy comes with a price, mr may.
        the schools that you send your kids to (forgive me if you're 
 celibate or childless) are run by the govt.  am i saying they do a good 
 job?  not necessarily, but what i _am_ saying is that your kids _still_ 
 go.  i am almost positive, despite attempts to the contrary, that you 
 make use of the US postal system.  the phone lines that you connect 
 that computer to were installed by - guess who? - there are a hundred 
 other things you and i and everyone use that wouldn't be there if it 
 weren't for the USG (or state/county/municipal govt's).  tell me mr 
 may, how much of this are you willing to give up in your quest for what 
 (i am supposing) you mean in your little blurb at the end of your mail 
 - "collapse of governments"?  the writer supposes that mr may would 
 still be against, determined to oppose, and dedicated to the 
 elimination of [pick something, pick anything] if govt's didn't exist.  
        what's the quote?  "i may not agree with what you say, but i 
 defend to the death your right to say it."  something like that.
     
 >Smash the State.  
 aye, aye captain!
 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 mark m wrote:
 >In order for anonymous remailers to be completely anonymous, only one 
 >remailer in the chain has to be trustworthy.  If a message is chained 
 >through N remailers and N-1 of those remailers are run by spooks, the 
 >anonymity of the message depends on the remaining remailer.
     
 well, actually, the first remailer has to be the trustworthy one.  you 
 send a msg to the first with your "real" address, and if the spook is 
 there, voila! so...  i understand your point, but still, it has to be 
 the first one.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 dale thorn(?) wrote:
 >I'm amused to think that, in a nation armed with 20,000 or so nukes, 
 >the paranoid of paranoid nation-states as it were, some of the 
 >erstwhile intelligent citizens think that the U.S. military are just 
 >sitting around wringing their hands over the "fact" that the citizens 
 >have "unbreakable" crypto.
 >Bear in mind the Scientific American articles on Public Key crypto 
 >back in the 1970's.  The military knew the score back then, and if 
 >you think they just sat back and allowed all this to happen, well, 
 >sorry, I don't believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.
     
 one question (sarcastic and rhetorical): how long did it take for the 
 USG to actually acknowledge that the NSA.NRO.DIA.etc existed? hmmm.... 
 has a segment of the populace gone stark raving paraniod?
     
 >Second, any truly secret messaging taking place represents a serious 
 >threat to the military, and contrary to some naive popular opinion, 
 >those guys are not going to lay down for this...
     
 what does the military have to do wiht private citizens conversing in 
 secret?  are _you_ one of the naive that think men actually in 
 uniform controll the military?  hello - the SecDef is a civillian.  
 the president is a democrat.  the military does what the white house/ 
 congress tell it (the writer realizes this is a vastly over- 
 simplified response to a vastly broad statement).
     
 ---------------------- SUCRUM22@cv62.navy.mil -----------------------
   a calculated risk based on the possible consequence of an action
  is better than a haphazard one based on poor judgment or ignorance
 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 Don't confuse my views with those of the DoD or the United States Navy