1997-05-04 - Re: FC: Responses to Tim May’s criticism of SAFE, and a rebuttal

Header Data

From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
To: Ernest Hua <declan@vorlon.mit.edu>
Message Hash: d8f32165f076e18783f0b345a27802689859f0ee562902555d074e633585fcf6
Message ID: <v03007801af91e1128b39@[]>
Reply To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970502084319.13849A-100000@vorlon.mit.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1997-05-04 06:14:48 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 14:14:48 +0800

Raw message

From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 14:14:48 +0800
To: Ernest Hua <declan@vorlon.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: FC: Responses to Tim May's criticism of SAFE, and a rebuttal
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970502084319.13849A-100000@vorlon.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <v03007801af91e1128b39@[]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

[I've been away from my computer, else I would've responded to Ernest's
post earlier.]

At 11:10 AM -0800 5/2/97, Ernest Hua wrote:

>In short, they can get what they want instantly, while we cannot
>except through a long and arduous process (during which they can throw
>many procedural and lobbying obstacles to slow us down).  The process
>is clearly in THEIR favor (and not without good reason), and we must
>face that fact.

Yes, and they keep throwing out new proposals (Clipper I, II, and III, Key
Recovery Initiative, Trusted Third Parties, blah blah). Not to mention
Digital Telephony, iterations of the copyright law, and ambiguous
legislation about terrorism and assistance to terrorists. They can generate
laws far faster than we can mount political counter-efforts, especially
since the lobbying agencies (FBI, NSA, Commerce, FCC, FDA, SEC, etc.) are
using _our_ stolen money to pay for these lobbying efforts.

It's hopeless to fight them on their own turf, as they hold most of the
cards (and we paid for them).

>It takes just one Om Shinri Kyo (sp?) in any nation to convince its
>leaders to pass knee-jerk panic legislation in the name of security,
>and it's the fault of politics at the beck and call of human nature
>(not just stupid politicians).

And this will happen regardless of whether SAFE passes or not. As several
of us have pointed out, SAFE contains prominently mentioned provisions for
the stoppage of crypto exports (and maybe even domestic distribution)
should terrorism or military diversions be linked. (Stuff about the EEPA,
for example.)

When a nut shot up a schoolyard, we lost our basic right to buy basic
firearms. (The same thing happened in Australia and Britain, too. Almost as
if there's a script being followed. "Save the children" is the passphrase
for removing liberties.)

When it was _suspected_ that a bomb took the TWA flight down, look what
happened to the liberties of travellers in public places.

As Ernest notes, all it will take is one _major_ terrorist incident for
many of the remaining liberties to vanish in a period of a few weeks. Had
the World Trade Center bombs succeeded (in bringing down one of the
towers), this would have done it. When freedom fighters ultimately succeed
in, say, killing 5000 Londoners in a Sarin or Ricin attack in the Tube,
expect dramatic moves in all Western nations to sharply curtail civil

There is no hope that legal measures can maintain liberty. Only
technological bypasses of the State can succeed.

--Tim May

There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."