From: blanc <blancw@accessone.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 23:52:30 +0800
To: "'Vladimir Z. Nuri'" <vznuri@netcom.com>
Subject: RE: more RANTING about NSA-friendly cpunks
Message-ID: <01BAEEB4.B4C45680@blancw.accessone.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



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). 
that is the point of the law, that is the intent of it. 
..............................................................................................

"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.   

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).   

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"?