From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 14:31:49 +0800
To: <s1113645@tesla.cc.uottawa.ca>
Subject: Re: Watch your language, Shabbir.
Message-ID: <m0u8Id7-0008ylC@pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 08:07 PM 4/13/96 -0400, s1113645@tesla.cc.uottawa.ca wrote:
>
>On Tue, 9 Apr 1996, jim bell wrote:
>
>> Look, very carefully, at the last paragraph quoted above.  Mr. Safdar says, 
>> "No reasonable person is objecting to the FBI's right to conduct a wiretap."
>
>That's right. Because no reasonable person thinks they can convince Congress
>or the Supremes otherwise. It isn't impossible, but energies are best spent 
>elsewhere, like getting the Burns bill passed. 

But that's not entirely the issue.   Mr. Safdar's wording is critical, 
because it concedes FAR too much about what the government is assumedly 
entitled to do. Below, you've admitted that everybody here believes in what 
Mr. Safdar claims "no reasonable person" believes.  Is Mr. Safdar saying 
we're ALL not reasonable?!?  Are you?

Further, I've read of multiple polls (Unfortunately, I can't quote a 
specific one) that show that a substantial _majority_ of the population 
objects to wiretaps under most any circumstance. (The figure I seem to recall was 
somewhere between 60% and 70%)  If this recollection is true, and if the 
poll was accurate, there is no reason to believe that even your adjustments 
to Mr. Safdar's position is a accurate limit on reasonableness.  

I claim:

1.  The vast majority of the population does not believe that the ability to 
wiretap is a government "right."

2.  A majority of the population does not believe that the government should 
wiretap, even if it is assumed to have this authority.

>Now none of us think wiretaps are a right and I presume Shabbir isn't 
>much of a fan either or he wouldn't take the trouble of supporting 
>something that makes wiretapping pointless (crypto).

However, why did he make the claim the way he did?  Is it just sloppy 
spokesmanship?  Worse, why did no one else catch this gaffe?  Is everybody 
else asleep? I saw no other commentary indicating that anybody noticed  his 
statements.   Are they ignoring Mr. Safdar's postings?  Are they not reading 
them at all?  Do these people not recognize that his comments practically 
grant the entire enchilada to the government?  Why did he do this?  And why 
hasn't he corrected what is apparently a huge mistake?


> But we and he are 
>not Washington and there lies all the difference.

Let's assume that my recollection is correct and most people don't want 
wiretapping at all.  Why, exactly, should you believe that we're fated to 
get it anyway? (If you recall, I quoted part of a Brittanica article which 
said that from 1934 to 1968, a number of attempts to write wiretapping into 
law FAILED.  Clearly, wiretapping wasn't inevitable then, and it doesn't 
have to be inevitable now.)

 Consider a hypthetical discussion with some Senator or 
Representative, where we point out that the public, as a whole, does not 
want wiretaps at all.  "Why," we should ask, "should wiretaps occur when the 
public doesn't want them?  Doesn't the majority get its way, at least in 
situations such as this?  (It violates nobody's rights to NOT have wiretaps.)"

The bigshot could come back and say, "But law-enforcement WANTS wiretaps!"  
Our next question should be, "Okay, but why does a tiny fraction of the 
population get more say in what happens than 70% of the public?  Even if, 
arguably, wiretaps are beneficial, if the majority says they want to forgo 
this benefit, why don't they have this privilege?" 

At this point, the government sleazeball  might not admit to the problem, 
but I doubt he'd have much of a response.


>Do remember, Jim, that just 'cause most of this list is libertarian 
>doesn't mean that the rest of the world is.

If, say, 70% or even 60% or 50% of the public doesn't want wiretaps at all,  
calling oneself libertarian is not required to share the opinion that 
government doesn't have the "right" to do them.  Thus, I didn't couch my 
argument in terms that would require a libertarian to agree with them.  This 
was intentional:  I wasn't attempting to claim that the politicians 
are somehow obligated to follow libertarian opinions, but they damn well 
listen to MAJORITY opinions, at least when they limit what government should do!

> I'm thankful that they can 
>occasionally agree with us horsepeople, despite the hysteria. Be polite.

Hey, I _was_ adequately polite.  However, unlike many of the people who are 
asleep at the switch around here, I am observant and I don't accept bullshit 
just because it is couched in terms that sound friendly.  This incident, and 
particularly the failure of nearly all of the regular posters to see the 
problem with Shabbir's comments,  has convinced me that a substantial 
fraction of the people who regularly post on CP aren't carefully considering 
issues such as rights of the population when they read this kind of 
material.  You, at least, acknowledged that wiretapping isn't a "right."  
Where is everyone else's objection to Shabbir's statement?

BTW, I'm not suggesting that I think that the majority of the population 
must necessarily have the "right" to do wiretaps if they want them:  I'm 
saying that they have a right to NOT do wiretaps.  There is a distinct 
difference between these two positions.  The constitution may prohibit 
wiretaps even if the majority wants them; logic and history shows that the 
constitution does not MANDATE wiretaps even if the majority doesn't want them.


Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com