[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: In response to Declan's questions about crypto.com
Jonah Seiger didn't have any better sense than to write:
> We also recognize the realities of politics. No matter how much any of us
> might wish it to be true, members of the Commerce Committee were not
> willing to stand up and simply oppose everything. It was not in the
> cards. White and Markey offered them a chance to defeat Oxley while
> throwing a small bone to law enforcement. We believe that passage of SAFE
> with the White-Markey amendment, despite the problems with the criminal
> provisions, is on balance, a step forward in the fight for encryption
> policy reform.
ARE YOU FUCKING CRAZY!!!!????!!!!????
Do you remember the NRA? You know, the organization that used to
refuse to compromise on defending the Constitution?
Well, they decided to play DC's game, and now they are nothing more
than a bunch of lame fucks who spend their time trying to explain to
their dwindling membership that people with half-a-brain and a modicum
of common sense need to give up their right to self-defense so that
brainless retards won't get murdered with their own guns.
Louis Freeh wants cryptographers' nuts and the CDT wants to tell us
that giving him *one* nut is "a step forward."
NEWS FLASH FOR THE LAME FUCKS AT CDT!!!!
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights *do*not* end with the words:
"...unless it's too much trouble."
"...except for drug dealers, pedophiles, pornographers and
"...except for niggers, spics, wops and kikes."
"...except for women."
"...except for communists."
"...except for Dr. Dimitri Vulis, KOTM."
"...unless the 'legitimate needs of law enforcement' necessitate the
abandonment and/or abrogation of all basic human rights."
"...up until the time comes when people purporting to defend basic
human rights guaranteed under the Constitution decide to support the
compromise of the rights of others."
> That's why we have described the vote on cryto.com as a "vote in
> privacy". I do not expect that this will convince all of our detractors,
> but I do hope this clarifies the substance of Declan's criticism.
Declan's criticism does not *need* clarifying.
What needs clarifying is how CDT and it's bum-buddy organizations can
possibly claim to justify the turning of 'rights' into 'privleges' which
can then be revoked by those who claim to 'grant' them.
Is CDT going to desribe the vote for the law allowing the citizens of
the US to take 'reasonable' breathes of air as "a vote in favor of
Do us all a favor and stand next to the lawyers so that Shakespeare
doesn't have to waste bullets when people of reason get tired of
letting the lame fucks rule the planet.
Toto (posting anonymously)
> As always, I am happy to respond to queries about CDT's positions and
> tactics, but I am not interested in engaging in public flame throwing.
> * Value Your Privacy? The Government Doesn't. Say 'No' to Key Escrow! *
> Adopt Your Legislator - http://www.crypto.com/adopt
> Jonah Seiger, Communications Director (v) +1.202.637.9800
> Center for Democracy and Technology pager +1.202.859.2151
> <[email protected]>
> PGP Key via finger