[118954] in Cypherpunks
Re: IP: Net users must prepare for Big Brother (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jim Choate)
Mon Oct 11 09:56:50 1999
From: Jim Choate <ravage@EINSTEIN.ssz.com>
Message-Id: <199910111333.IAA17571@einstein.ssz.com>
To: cypherpunks@EINSTEIN.ssz.com
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 08:33:58 -0500 (CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: Jim Choate <ravage@EINSTEIN.ssz.com>
----- Forwarded message from Reese -----
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 02:51:27 -1000
From: Reese <reeza@flex.com>
Subject: Re: IP: Net users must prepare for Big Brother (fwd)
At 08:28 PM 10/10/99 -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
>
>----- Forwarded message from John Young -----
>
>Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 19:19:53 -0400
>From: John Young <jya@pipeline.com>
>Subject: CDR: Re: IP: Net users must prepare for Big Brother (fwd)
>
>What the G8 panickers are aiming for is a method to lay
>claim to all the records and data of access points and ISPs
>around the globe which may have been used as links in the
>trail of a criminal action, not unlike the broadscope grounds
>for seizure and forfeiture criticized here yesterday in testimony
>by the Cato attorney.
>
>...
>
>As with forfeiture the ISP does not have to be guilty of a crime,
>but the hopping data in its machines is evidence.
>
>[ only *after* the actual crime. ]
>
>...
>
>----- End of forwarded message from John Young -----
>
>
that's gotta be the lamest response I've ever seen from you Jim,,, John
must have hit a soft spot,,,
Error in <send>mail???
[ no, just the first problem that popped into my head. Complete lines of
logic seldom spring forth fully realized. Sometimes it takes some work
to get it to all fit together. ]
from a followup post, the reply you meant to send the first time:
>So these governments are going to force every programmer on the planet to
>write code a certain way, or include a particular library at a certain
>point, etc.? How can that be? It violates the 1st.
Error #1, th USG has already sold a bill of goods wrt crypto, crypto is not
an expression of speech, unless it is printed on a dead tree (or < 40 bits).
[ Unless Junger wins his case. And even if he loses that doesn't end it.
Even the current crypto law doesn't tell you how to write code as this
proposal would. The current crypto law doesn't required any exchange of
crypto within the US to be regulated. There are lots more differences
that make this comparison useless. ]
>The US government can't
>tell you to write a book.
erratum #2, they'd rather you kept quiet, than spread knowledge that would
work against them.
[ Irrelevant in this situation. Nothing in the proposal that I've seen would
require an operator to not disclose the material, only that they must
collect it and make it available. It *would* make it a crime for a student
to write a TCP/IP stack for example without a tap. It would make it
illegal to use any OS without a tap on a network. Strictly speaking all
those video games out there that let one 'network' between multiple
players over the Internet would be illegal. ]
>How do they propose to make operating systems like
>Linux compliant?
They don't. To date, the military and increasing numbers of businesses are
going with virusNT, homeowners with vitus98,,, linux proponents distinguish
themselves in ways they do not comprehend (read between the lines on this
one, ok?). they will probably use this preference of OS to single
dissenters out, and then require them to provide passkeys or suffer the
consequences.
[ You're looking at a different set of market growth rates than I am. The
growth rate of Linux is very high, whereas for WinNT it is low. In addition
the take up of W2K and Millenium are predicted to be much lower than
expected. ]
>Are they seriously proposing to outlaw Open Source software?
Nope, why should they when it is an excellent vehicle for other agendas?
[ But the source as supplied is illegal under this proposal. How do they
propose to make Open Source programmers toe the line unless they
regulate the writting of software? ]
>And what about older non-compliant systems, is it going to become illegal to
>use them?
eh? older systems are presumably already compromised (or already cracked),
better to use them, more easily to crack them,,,
[ Bullshit. ]
> And just exactly *who* is paying for all this upgrading and hardware
>replacement (I assume they'll want the routers doing it also)?
It's the USG, remember? You (and I) did,,,
[ You have no clue what it would cost to dump the current infrastructure and
move to something that would support this proposal. Practicaly every
bridge, router, network stack, etc. is non-compliant under this wording
and would need to be replaced. Development time, manufacturing, etc.
are horrendous costs that won't get passed alond directly to consumers
under this proposal. ]
>I wonder how
>the British are going to feel with the French and Germans pawing around their
>networks by asking the Swiss, and visa versa?
harumph. the swiss are probably funding some facet of it, the brits have
menwith hill, and the frogs have always marched to the sound of their own
drum. that leave the germans, and we know they are control freaks.
[ You miss the point. Think about it a while. ]
----- End of forwarded message from Reese -----
____________________________________________________________________
The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full
of passionate intensity.
W.B. Yeats
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate
Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com
www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087
-====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
--------------------------------------------------------------------
