Re: Stewart Baker on Bernstein encryption decision (fwd)

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

>It cost a lot of companies a lot of money, time, and sales while
>they resubmitted the same applications to the Commerce Department.  


well now Mr. BAKER, it has cost a lot of companies a lot of 
TIME and MONEY and SALES to adhere to laws that were
obviously UNCONSTITUTIONAL from the very beginning, such that
even the most dimwitted of citizens could tell you, but the sharpest
politicians and bureacrats in our government could or would not, all erected 
by a government way out of control and subject to covert machinations
by a massively funded/favored constituency known as the SPOOKS,
under the patriotic guise of NATIONAL SECURITY. 

*spit*

I sincerely hope that this is the first straw that breaks that 
fraudulent camel's back. soon let the whole corrupt 
structure fall like the rotten house of cards that it is.

ironic indeed that you of all people would lament the
"money, time, and sales" that have cost companies in the
bureacratic and regulatory quagmire that is known as our government.
yes, let your hastily-composed email stand as eternal testament
to the fact that SOME PEOPLE JUST DON'T GET IT, even as they
wallow daily in their own hypocrisy.

the horrid and repulsive episode known as "cryptography regulations"
is indicative that there
are some people in the world who are not playing by rules of honor
and integrity, even as they live under the same country, they do not
have an agenda that is befitting of the welfare of the general
populace, that they will exercise the greatest ingenuity in 
stretching their own authorities beyond that which is legitimate,
in the attempt to glom as much power as can be obtained,
and can be restrained from their covert machinations
against their fellow man only by the shrewdest of vigilance-- something
we have been deeply remiss and negligent, as a nation, in invoking.

when in the course of human events it become necessary to expunge a 
parasite...

gosh, could it really be the authority was handed to the commerce department
so "the government could avoid the                 
constitutional deficiencies of its regulations by rotating oversight            
of them from department to department"??? naw. ah, but that would be like
impugning the impeccable motives of the tooth fair, would it not?

(if so, it would be the one of the least vile and sleazy tactics employed
so far in the whole sorry affair.)

I am sorry that this message can barely begin to muster the sarcastic 
contempt I feel for you and your despicable cohorts, Mr. Baker. if you
prefer a more civil message, perhaps TCM will have some consolation
for you.


>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Tue, 26 Aug 97 11:51:37 EST
>From: Stewart Baker <sbaker@mail.steptoe.com>
>To: fight-censorship-announce@vorlon.mit.edu, declan@well.com
>Subject: Re: FC: John Gilmore to cypherpunks on Bernstein decision
>
>     
>Declan--
>
>John is entitled to brag about the Bernstein decision, but getting the 
>Department of State to "RWA" all of its pending license applications is nothing 
>to brag about.  It cost a lot of companies a lot of money, time, and sales while
>they resubmitted the same applications to the Commerce Department.  
>
>I said at the time that State's advice to crypto exporters in those last few 
>weeks was "Get your tongue out of my mouth, I'm kissing you good-bye."  
>
>Perhaps the cause of this action was the lawsuit, perhaps it was spite at the 
>crypto exporters who lobbied for a change in jurisdiction, but whatever the 
>cause, it was not a good thing for anybody who is actually in the crypto 
>business.
>
>Stewart