From: Anonymous <nowhere@bsu-cs>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 94 17:32:22 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <199404280032.TAA11447@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


I simply had to pass this article along to c'punks...


Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: milles@fi.gs.com (Stevens Miller)
Subject: NSA remarks at "Lawyers and the Internet"
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 17:04:33 GMT

I'm a computer programmer and attorney who is a member of the Committee
on Technology and the Practice of Law, a task force assembled by the
Association of the Bar of the City of New York.  Last Friday we held a
conference on "Lawyers and the Internet."  Approximately 200 lawyers
attended.

Speaking in favor of the Clipper proposal was Stuart Baker of the NSA.
I won't repeat his substantial arguments, but his formal approach (which
Mike Godwin tells me is becoming a standard component of the government's
pro-Clipper road show) is worth some attention.  Parroting his own words
at CFP, Baker told us:

- The debate over the Clipper proposal is "really just a culture clash
among net-heads."

- Those opposing the proposal are late-coming counter-culturists, "who
couldn't go to Woodstock because they had to do their trig homework."

- Opponents envision themselves as would-be "cybernauts in bandoliers and
pocket-protectors."

I quote these remarks (as best I can from memory; my hands were shaking too
much to write clearly at this point) to make it clear that our government's
representative has reached a conclusion about the community opposing its
plan.  He has concluded that the members of that community are so beneath
his respect that it is more appropriate to make fun of them than it is to
respond to their views.  As Godwin pointed out later, the NSA really just
doesn't care what anyone says.  That, he said, is why Baker repeatedly invokes
the spectre of child-molestation as the chief evil Clipper will prevent; by
that invocation is much meritorious debate deflected.  Baker replied to this
by emphasizing the reality of the pedophilia potential of networks, telling
us that many users of networks "are teenaged boys with inept social skills."

Regardless of the law-enforcement potential of this plan, it is worth noting
that an official spokesman for the government endorses it by pointing out
that its opponents valued their studies more highly than they did rock and roll.
That because the popular image of the bookworm can be juxtaposed against that
of Rambo in a funny way, bookworms don't have to be taken seriously.

That if you play with computers as a youngster, your community, your parents
and your own brain can't save you.  That the government must protect you
from your own ineptitude, whether you want its help or not.

The message was pretty clear:  Stuart Baker doesn't care what you say, but he
wants the power to listen.

---
Stevens R. Miller			|"The complete truth is not the
(212) 227-1594				| prerogative of the human judge."
sharp@echonyc.com			|
New York, New York			| - Supreme Court of Israel