Re: unSAFE (at any speed)

[nobody@huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer)]

Declan McCullagh got off his knees and pulled up his
pants long enough to forward:

> From: Michael Sims <jellicle@inch.com>
> To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu
> Subject: unSAFE
 
> Well, I've read Mr. Davidson's defense of the SAFE bill and of course
> Mr. May's earlier argument against it.  A few more comments.

> The Trading with the Enemy Act was passed in 1917 and amended
> (importantly) in 1933 (Great Depression, New Deal).
> It specifically
> allowed the president to regulate as he wished, during wartime, the
> assets and fiscal transactions conducted by an enemy country.
> (Confiscation and all that).  Fair enough, for a WWI era law.
> 
>  Recall, this is during a declared war only.

> In 1933 it was amended, hastily, sneakily, back-door-ily, in order
> to grant incoming President Roosevelt extraordinary powers over the
> money supply of the nation.  It was amended to declare all citizens
> of the United States to be "enemies", under its power during any
> time of war *or national emergency*.  That is, the "Trading with the
> Enemy" act now applied to all citizens of the US and all of their
> interpersonal transactions.

  Amen! Someone who understands that the governement long ago usurped
the power of the voters and has declared the citizens to be the enemy,
putting in place governmental powers that allow the elite to rule the
country according to their personal dictates, no matter what the wishes
of the citizens are.
  The ruling elite (not the people we elect, by the way) let us 
fight vainly over this or that provision of laws and regulations
which cut off our private parts an inch at a time, and then, once
their overt screwing of the citizenry has reached its final limits,
they finish the job behind closed doors, via the dictatorial power
of *national emergency* legislation.

> Thus the new wording below.  This is now during war *or national
> emergency declared by the president*.
> 
> "through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, investigate,
> regulate or prohibit under such rules and regulations as he may
> prescribe <...>
> Roosevelt of course declared a national emergency and proceeded on
> his way.  However, he declared it in such a way as to make it
> continue until revoked.  This country remains in a state of emergency
> today, and will do so forthe foreseeable future, and the President
> retains the extraordinary powers intended solely for wartime.
 
> These include the total ability to regulate commerce in the United
> States.

  'We the sheeple' would be outraged if the government entered our
homes and businesses and forced us into compliance with their wishes
at gunpoint.
  So they do it with financial guns, in an age where money=survival,
and the average joe's mind has been so conditioned to financial rule
that the Money Gods are deemed to be invincible paragons of 'right
thinking.'
  No matter how obvious it is that the government is using our own
money to screw us, we still feel that we are 'bad people' if we 
don't pay our taxes. We feel like we are truly guilty criminals
if we resist participating in our own oppression.

> I recommend Michael Froomkin's excellent (and lengthy) article on the
> subject at
> http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/planet_clipper.htm.
> 
> Although about the Clipper chip, if you go about 60% through the
> article he has a solid discussion of the EAA, IEEPA and the
> presidential power thereunder.  It's 50 U.S.C. Sec. 1701 and
> following.  Section 1702 there has the meat of it.
> 
> This Act allows the President, once he has declared a state of
> emergency, to regulate essentially any commerce with another nation,
> except those items directly identified as "speech" - magazines,
> papers, etc.

  And if he declares a "Jaywalking Violators National Emergency"
with far-reaching consequences, it will get a small blurb on the
back pages of the major print media, if anything.
  Declan (bless his D.C. journalist ass) might speak up about the
dangers of the action, but is unlikely to be heard by the people
at the shopping malls, where most Americans live.

> Every "right" the SAFE act grants is already possessed.  The law
> also poses severe penalties for using crypto in furtherance of a
> crime.

  How long until we have a new law which "grants" us the right to
breathe, but makes breathing in furtherance of a crime subject to
severe penalties?

> Anyone using PGP on their computer?  Crime involved at least one
> email sent for any reason?  Extra five years.  This will hardly
> support the spread of encryption.
> 
> It gives law enforcement guaranteed access to keys: an awful
> precedent.  Any law enforcement officer or investigative officer
> (attornies prosecuting a case) who is empowered to prosecute or
> participate in the prosecution of offenses under this act may compel
> disclosure of keys.  All one needs is an escrow provision to ensure
> that such a key is available for the government to retrieve - and
> such a provision is perfectly legal for the president to impose.
> Thus, an FBI agent, who is "empowered" to investigate crimes under
> this act, can compel disclosure, by a third party, of your keys -
> without cause to even believe an offense has actually been
> committed.  Without judicial review.  This will further the spread
> of strong crypto?

  The end result? We can *still* use strong crypto, but *now* it 
will cost us five years of our life to do so, unless we give up
our keys, which negates the use of crypto in the first place.

  I used to love Garner Ted Armstrong talking about missionaries
who travelled to obscure corners of the earth in order to *save*
people by telling them about Jesus.
  He would ask them what happened if a particular individual died
before the missionary arrived, and thus never got a chance to hear
about Jesus? Would they burn in hell, as a result.
  The missionaries would explain that, since they never got a 
chance to hear about Jesus, that they would go to heaven by default,
since God wouldn't punish them with everlasting fire just because
they never had a chance to be *saved*.
  Garner Ted would then point out that the missionaries where thus
not giving the individual a chance to go to *heaven*, since they
were going there anyway, by default, but were, in fact, giving the
individual a chance to go to *hell*.

  I think about this every time that I hear about a new piece of
government legislation designed to *save* me from this-or-that
evil/hell.

> THIS BILL GIVES NOTHING AT ALL AND MAKES USE OF CRYPTO WORTH
> FIVE YEARS IN PRISON.  Continued support of this bill by privacy and
> crypto advocates is outrageous.

  Yes, but the reality of life is that reasonable people learn that
they need to compromise...and compromise...and compromise...and 
compromise...and compromise...and compromise...and compromise...
  "HEY! WHERE DID ALL OF MY FREEDOM AND PRIVACY GO?!?"

TruthMonger