From: liberty@gate.net (Jim Ray)
Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 03:14:21 +0800
To: angels@wavenet.com (CyberAngels Director : Colin Gabriel Hatcher)
Subject: Re: Freedom and security
Message-ID: <199605011155.HAA41660@osceola.gate.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

CyberAngels Director Colin Gabriel Hatcher wrote:

<snips>

>>...Freedom does not increase through more laws.
>
>Nor does freedom increase through less laws or no laws.

You have gotta be kidding me, but let's start by differentiating
among laws. I'm a crypto-minarchist, not a crypto-anarchist, so
I still have hope for some (MUCH less) government. I think laws
against murder are good, and lead to more safety for those not in
jail. I think laws against "consensual crimes" are bad, and lead
to government/police corruption extending all the way to the top
[see sigfile]. When I have to say, "where's the victim?" it's a
shitty law. Many laws fail my test.

>  Freedom increases
>as respect and care for one another increases.

This is what I called flowery rhetoric in the last post.

>  Meanwhile, since we do not
>live in utopia, all societies at a certain level of economic development
>and of a certain size of population require law and law enforcement to
>protect citizens from predators.

This is what astounds me, the advocates of more government always
focus on crimes WITH obvious victims during debates. Once power
is achieved, the victimless crime laws get written. I have said
I do want murderers, and even some (not all) pedophiles, in jail.
If a child pornographer chooses to visit my page and commits a
thoughtcrime involving my babypictures, I say leave him alone. If
he commits a real crime with an unwilling victim I say punish him
even more than the present government punishes him. Libertarians,
when we achieve political power, will find ourselves with abundent
jail cells left over from the tax-and-spend drugwar to put real
criminals (the ones who have an individual victim) in.

>[...flowery rhetoric] Does anyone really doubt the extent of State
>control and power across the Net?

There are certainly enough statists who feel a need to increase it.

>
> >.... laws only breed more laws, which always lead to
>>less freedom.
>
>I disagree with this statement. I do not believe that laws breed more laws
>nor that laws lead to less freedom.  I believe bad laws compromise freedom
>(eg CDA) while good laws protect freedom.

I am heartened by your opposition to the CDA (though I did not
notice a Cyberangels voice in the debate/protest leading up to
this abominable law...) but I must point out that you offer no
good test, like my "where's the victim?" test, to differentiate
good laws from bad ones. As to more laws leading to less freedom
I stand by my words. Go down to any law library and have a look
at the Code of Federal Regulations. As wordy, poorly-written laws
proliferate, we all become "criminals," subject to the arbitrary
power of the state's prosectors. When the state prosecutors are
a partisan Democrat followed by a partisan Republican, and the
"criminals" are high-ranking Democrats and Republicans, you end
up with a lesser respect for all laws, even the good ones. Again,
see my sigfile. Now imagine the Libertarian party was doing the
same drug-smuggling...Would the feds [let alone the media] be
so silent? I doubt it.

>Cryptography enhances and protects privacy, which does not inevitably lead
>to greater security.  Security for the sender, yes, in that no one else can
>read the message, but security for the Community?

I find it worrisome that you capitalize the word, despite my rant
involving Director Freeh. I repeat: The community is made up of
individuals.

>  Doesnt that depend what
>the message said?  The technology itself is neutral.

Therefore, I guess, the "Community" must forcibly take my key
to make sure that last PGPmessage wasn't child porn, right?
It is important to make sure I don't commit thoughtcrime.

>  Child pornographers
>encrypt their hard drives so that law enforcement cannot gather crime
>evidence - that is certainly a state of greater security for the
>pornographer, but it does not improve our Community, and as child
>pornography increases, the law is by definition broken more and more, and
>so the Community becomes less free than before.  And that's not the tyranny
>of government but the tryanny of criminals.

Look. I don't care if some old man beats off to the tune of baby
pictures. There is no victim. If he finds a victim, toss him in
the slammer, or kill him. Right now, the tax-and-spend drugwar is
creating a revolving-door justice system when it comes to victim
crimes, and the people (naturally) disrespect the law. Respect
for ALL law, good and bad, is poisoned by this foolishness and
when combined with a disrespect for the historical power of
juries to nullify shitty laws, and ignorance of history.

>I do in fact support cryptography for personal security, not least because
>I can ensure that my messages are authenticated.  CyberAngels PGP public
>key will be up on our new website opening very soon.  I've had enough of
>people forging my email.

<sarcasm on>
Oh, why bother with this self-help, vigilante solution to the
need for authentication. Why not just pass another law? PGP is
a pain-in-the-ass to install and learn. I'm sure the Congress
and President Clinton (who has also experienced e-mail forgery)
would support it, and then you won't have to bother learning
PGP or reading that awful PGPdoc1 & PGPdoc2.
</sarcasm>

>"Two people may disagree, but
>that does not mean that one of them is evil"

I think it should be legal for me to sell my body for sex, or put
any substance into it I choose, because _I_ own my body.
The "Community" may think I'm evil for advocating this immoral
misuse of "their" property...
At the same time, I may think the "Community" evil for trying to
steal/claim my property...
Either I'm right and the "Community" is evil, or the other way
around. Which one is it?
JMR

Regards, Jim Ray <liberty@gate.net> 

"My cynical belief is that there is a lack of motivation in either
 party to fully and properly investigate [Mena] because the results
 will damage as many Republicans as Democrats." - former prosecutor
 Charles Black, in April 22, 1996's Wall Street Journal p.A22
 
 Hey kids! Try this fun Westlaw search:  mena /p cocaine
 Best to look in the newspapers, and not the cases! [see above]
_______________________________________________________________________
PGP key Fingerprint  51 5D A2 C3 92 2C 56 BE  53 2D 9C A1 B3 50 C9 C8 
Public Key id. #  E9BD6D35   --   http://www.shopmiami.com/prs/jimray
_______________________________________________________________________


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Freedom isn't Freeh.

iQCVAwUBMYdQAW1lp8bpvW01AQHBmwQAmWdWABJpRbg0QzF77vR1ykKN4DOsY4S6
0kRsIEWjm5JDXswnJYy2ZiS/aDLk5mYAzcMh1PR/CrBTdk8McYIkTQCbxxrOfbFx
+ySBi9fg22wp1ySjlP+G36W7PKOBDfl6tzOq4ZQA7JFe63HwiLhgBl5TeC9YP96p
V1nN3FkwfM4=
=AkHe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----