[165520] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The US government has betrayed the Internet. We need to take it
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Larry Stites)
Fri Sep 6 17:30:57 2013
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 14:30:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Larry Stites <ncnet@sbcglobal.net>
To: "sam@circlenet.us" <sam@circlenet.us>, "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <09428536190357281104c4b05d29f720@www.circlenet.us>
Reply-To: Larry Stites <ncnet@sbcglobal.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
MAN UP!=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0A From: Sam Moats <sam@ci=
rclenet.us>=0ATo: nanog@nanog.org =0ASent: Friday, September 6, 2013 8:04 A=
M=0ASubject: Re: The US government has betrayed the Internet. We need to ta=
ke it back=0A =0A=0AThis is part of the purpose behind the separation of po=
wers between executive, legislative and judicial.=0AWilliam Pitt wrote "Unl=
imited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it" . As such=
constraints=0Aare needed and in place.=0A=0AWe expect politician to cheat,=
lie,be stupid and self serving. Because we like people who tell us what we=
=0Awant to hear and most of us vote for people that we like. The do not hav=
e to be wise, or even competent.=0A=0APersonally I think most of the fault =
currently lies with the Judicial side. These laws were enacted as a=0Aknee =
jerk reaction to an event. I can understand the passions of people at that =
time because I shared them,=0Ahowever the courts are supposed to be a bulwa=
rk against this very kind of rash action.=0AThese men and women are suppose=
d to be well educated in the fundamental concepts that constructed our repu=
blic=0Aand appointed to terms that prevent them from worrying about the pol=
itical whims of the time.=0A=0A=0A=0ASam=0A=0A=0AOn 2013-09-06 10:55, Royce=
Williams wrote:=0A> On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 6:27 AM, Naslund, Steve <SNaslu=
nd@medline.com> wrote:=0A> =0A> [snip]=0A> =0A>> 1.=A0 We vote in a new exe=
cutive branch every four years.=A0 They control and=0A> appoint the NSA dir=
ector.=A0 Vote them out if you don't like how they run=0A> things.=A0 Do yo=
u think a President wants to maintain power?=A0 Of course they=0A> do and t=
hey will change a policy that will get them tossed out (if enough=0A> peopl=
e actually care).=0A>> =0A>> 2.=A0 The Congress passes the laws that govern=
telecom and intelligence=0A> gathering.=A0 They also have the power to imp=
each and/or prosecute the=0A> executive branch for misdeeds.=A0 They will p=
ass any law or do whatever it=0A> takes to keep themselves in power.=A0 Aga=
in this requires a lot of public=0A> pressure.=0A> =0A> Historically speaki=
ng, I'm not convinced that a pure political solution=0A> will ever work, ot=
her than on the surface.=A0 The need for surveillance=0A> transcends both a=
dministrations and political parties.=A0 Once the newly=0A> elected are pre=
sented with the intel available at that level, even their=0A> approach to h=
andling the flow of information and their social interaction=0A> have to ch=
ange in order to function.=0A> =0A> Daniel Ellsberg's attempt to explain th=
is to Kissinger is insightful. It's=0A> a pretty quick read, with many laye=
rs of important observations. (It's=0A> Mother Jones, but this content is a=
political):=0A> =0A> =0A> =0A> http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/0=
2/daniel-ellsberg-limitations-knowledge=0A> =0A> I think that Schneier's go=
t it right.=A0 The solution has to be both=0A> technical and political, and=
must optimize for two functions: catch the bad=0A> guys, while protecting =
the rights of the good guys.=0A> =0A> When the time comes for the political=
choices to be made, the good=0A> technical choices must be the only ones a=
vailable.=0A> =0A> Security engineering must pave the way to the high road =
-- so that it's the=0A> only road to get there.=0A> =0A> Royce
