Re: Anonymous remailers and Leahy bill

[jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>]

Note to the rest of you:  Observe how Mr. Peterson carefully avoids quoting 
any material that was contained in my notes to him.  This makes his failure 
to respond to my points less clear.  This is entirely intentional on his part.


At 03:51 PM 3/7/96 -0500, A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security wrote:
>Understand though I feel no obligation to assist you in disagreeing 8*).

While technically correct, that comment was bullshit (at least as applied to 
my previous commentary) and you know it.  I've NEVER asked to be "assisted" 
in freedom; that's not what I'm complaining about.  I think it's clear you 
can't distinguish between "assisting" and "failing to prohibit."

Try again.

>Personally, I believe that this country is stronger than any individual 
>(or individual congress).

Silly truism.  What does this mean, anyway?

>I do disagree with your concept of assasination politics in that is is not 
>only "overkill" but a violation of *their* rights.

Who, exactly, are you referring to when you say "*their*"? rights?  An 
innocent citizen, unaffiliated with government?  Or somebody who violates my 
rights, steals my money to do it, etc.  It's not surprising that you weren't 
more clear.

> To me is is enough
>to simply remove a person from the ability to apply power in a way that
>would irritate me. 

They can always resign first. Nothing in the system I describe prevents 
this.   It _may_ save their lives.

>In an electronic world this is relatively easy.

Problem is, we don't yet live in "an electronic world."  Or, at least, our 
freedom is dependant on being able to deal with others in the non-electronic 
world.  And the government thugs of the world are busily trying to keep 
Internet from staying relatively free of controls and coercion.


>As for crypto, I feel that the government's desires are irrelevant since
>they lack the ability to control or even to detect it if we choose to 
>hide it.

That's a dangerous position to take.  When a law is on the books that the 
police can't easily enforce, they generally only enforce it against the 
people they perceive as being their enemies, and are worth spending the time 
to harass.

>Certain things I would like to do internationally would be easier if the
>US would clear the way with other nations (like France) first. In exchange
>I am willing to use key escrow (if powerful enough) so long as I hold
>my own keys.

Huh?  What does this comment mean?  I wouldn't trust "key escrow" EVEN IF I 
was the only one to "hold the keys."  The reason is simple:  When I make a 
crypted telephone call, I was the session key used to evaporate the instant 
the call ends.  I don't want to allow the government to try to coerce me 
into revealing "my keys" because if there is no reason to keep those keys, 
they should not be kept.  Simple.


>None of this has anything to do with my personal agenda except peripherally
>other than I tend to take a very long view of things and prefer to exert
>gentle pressures to get there.

In other words, you're as spineless as a jellyfish.  I prefer methods more 
likely to get results.  And when it's RIGHTS we're talking about, I will not 
hesitate to punish people who violate them.


> Secure E-Mail is a task that I expect to 
>take about 2-3 years of my time and 5 years to reach completion. If this
>happens sooner, fine. I do not expect it to take longer since I expect to
>have other interests by then.

Which means that you have no persistence nor sense of priorities.  Five 
years from now and the "war" will probably be over. 

>Your postings assist me with this. Thank you.

No, my postings show how silly your postings are.

BTW, "reverse psychology" doesn't work on anyone above the age of five or so.


Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com

Klaatu Burada Nikto