[48615] in Cypherpunks
RE: more RANTING about NSA-friendly cpunks
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (blanc)
Tue Jan 30 04:52:32 1996
From: blanc <blancw@accessone.com>
To: "'Vladimir Z. Nuri'" <vznuri@netcom.com>
Cc: "cypherpunks@toad.com" <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 01:45:56 -0800
From: Vladimir Z. Nuri, aka Agent Provocateur
no, your own fear is harming you. no law requires that you be in fear
of it (some may try, but that is not a law that can be written).=20
that is the point of the law, that is the intent of it.=20
........................................................................=
......................
"The Law" is using psychological warfare in its attempts to keep stray =
cats in line. This is because they haven't thoroughly considered the =
nature of the circumstance within which they are attempting to operate =
- the condition of respect for the individual and a support for the =
rights of liberty.
They too are afraid. They also are moved by the fear of threats like =
"the four horsemen". They are so focused on this fear that it overrides =
their "Prime Directive", which is to uphold the above mentioned =
principles. =20
They use the threats of the law to inspire complicity, but they do have =
the resources to carry out their threats. While an agency like the NSA =
is sufficiently well-funded where they can concentrate on pursuing their =
case against a target, a company or individual is engaged in creating =
their income at the same time that they must also use a portion of these =
resources to defend themselves in court (as well as defend their public =
image). =20
It would be a noble project to challenge something like the ITAR in a =
court of law, where the issues and flaws of the government's attitudes & =
methods could be brought out in detail, dashed to the ground by =
brilliant reasoning and argument, winning a battle not only for privacy, =
but for the lofty goal of individual sovereignty. But it would take a =
lot of time, some very able talents, and a lot of cash; most lone =
cryptographers would not be able to do these two things at once (making =
a living while also fighting the dragon).
It's easy for you, Vlad, to chastise others for being cowardly, when you =
have nothing to lose (and only incendiarism to offer). Those who are =
enjoined to take action must calculate how much they can afford to =
invest in such an expensive venture. You asked me in an earlier post =
how I could distinguish just any poster to the list from someone who =
might be an "agent provocateur". By this: they only provoke action =
from others - encouraging, cajoling, shaming, pushing them into =
thoughtless action, without themselves taking on any of the risk =
involved, without themselves facing any of the dangers but only getting =
others to do so.
The government does operate on support, and criticism of their policies =
lets them know where they stand (unsupported). But it also communicates =
to those in office ideas which they find it difficult to consider (or =
outrightly disdain). It serves to educate them as well, these =
controversial meetings and discussions: it reveals to them how just =
how educated everyone is on the matter of their rights under government, =
on the matter of how they see themselves in terms of self-determination, =
and on how they are each prepared to act accordingly. Public =
discussions have the value of education for those govmt representatives =
who do not consider thoroughly the implications of their policies, who =
are not clear on concepts of privacy.
It would be great to have a show of fireworks in a court of law. But =
(and I don't mean to begin a long thread of discussion on this) I myself =
would wonder why the Supreme Court wouldn't already be defending us from =
the attacks against basic ideals like personal privacy. There are =
already in existence a body of "authorities" assigned to the task of =
preserving the Constitution, educated in Law and the principles for =
which this nation stands. They are the ones whom I would address with =
inquiries over negligence & lilly-livered, yellow-bellied =
non-involvement. I guess someone has to bring the matter to their =
attention, bringing up charges of injustice for their wisdom to cogitate =
upon. Nevertheless, it is to them, who are in charge of maintaining =
consistency to the ideals within The Constitution, that I would ask, =
"why have you forsaken us"?
