From: Toto <toto@sk.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 23:23:15 -0800 (PST)
To: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Subject: Re: EU-FBI Wiretap Pact and CALEA (Digital Telephony)
In-Reply-To: <199703060335.TAA23612@mail.pacifier.com>
Message-ID: <331E710E.497D@sk.sympatico.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


jim bell wrote:
> 
> At 02:25 AM 3/3/97 -0800, Tim May wrote:
> >So, either the reporters here have it wrong, by implying CALEA and the
> >joint U.S.-U.K. agreeement applies to _e-mail_, or in fact CALEA is being
> >seen as applicable to e-mail. If the latter, then things are in much, much
> >worse shape than many of us feared.
> >
> >If this interpretation is upheld by the courts, we are in a state of war.
> >--Tim May
> 
> Indeed, we are.   Notice also that there appears to be no illusion that
> these kind of bills are being done due to public demand:  News on this
> subject is essentially nil, particularly in the mainstream news media.

  When one begins adding up all of the ways in which the country is 
being regulated and legislated 'outside' of the influence of the voters,
then it becomes apparent that we acually live in a demon-mockracy.
  It makes for great news when some 'little guy' manages to 'slip one
by' Big Brother, but the reality is that the court system is ruled by
money and power.
  As in the example stated above, much of the legislation proffered by
those elected bears little resemblence to issues that are of genuine
concern to the electorate.
  Any issues that the government can't ramrod through using the methods
above become matters of 'National Security'. The 'law of the land' then
ceases to apply, as 'Emergecy Measures' and secretive regulatory
agencies
write the law with no voting and a single stroke of the pen.

  The government even has the power to negate the ability of the
individual
or group to act in their own interest simply by making laws and
regulations
vague and/or complicated enough that it is unfeasible to act simply
because
of the time, energy, and funds required to do so--not to mention the
'risk'
involved.
  Through use of regulatory approval, or witholding of such, the
government
has the ability to influence the fast-moving course of various areas of
technology. Does anyone here want to make large investments in a product
that they 'may or may not' be able to sell?

  This forum has members in all areas of expertise surrounding crypto
issues,
but can anyone state, unequivocally, all of the finer points surrounding
legislation, regulation, etc., in this area? (Even if you think you
'can'
legally do this-or-that, are you going to do so if told by the
government
that you can't and will be subject to prosecution and/or financial
loss?)
   Do you expect for the laws to apply equally to all in areas of major
government interest? Some companies are 'approved' for export, while, on 
very questionable legal basis, others are 'denied' approval.
   Do you expect this type of gladhanded regulatory approach to be any 
different for CypherPunks remailers, versus military Onion Routers? When
some remailer operator is 'set-up' by the Right Reverend G. Stooge on a
pornography bust, or by G.I.Joe on a terrorism bust, do you expect the 
target to be a CypherPunk or a Vice-Admiral?

  The fact of the matter is, the government is fully capable of burying
the facts on any area of interest they wish, under cover of defending us
from the 'bad guys' lurking in the bushes, and once every four years
they
step into the limelight to decide who gets to spend the next four years
passing another mountain of legislation that, inch by inch, eats away
at the rights and freedoms that are theoretically guaranteed by the
Constitution.
  One has to wonder just how many times in history a vote in favor of
restricting the privacy and rights of citizens was gained by trading off 
a vote affecting 'hog futures'.
-- 
Toto
http://bureau42.base.org/public/xenix/xenbody.html