From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 12:02:52 +0800
To: Lizard <lizard@dnai.com>
Subject: Re: House National Security committee guts SAFE, worse than no  b
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970909203741.00c4a6c0@dnai.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970909204341.1768A-100000@well.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Lizard, I'm not sure if I should take your post as a compliment to my
writing abilities or an insult to my politics, but you should be aware
that my post about giving up freedom to play political games was entirely
facetious. Perhaps I should be more explicit in the future, but sometimes
it ruins the spoof. 

-Declan


On Tue, 9 Sep 1997, Lizard wrote:

> At 11:00 PM 9/9/97 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> >Michael, you once again fail to note the important political issues here. 
> >Sometimes civil liberties, freedom, and constitutional rights must be
> >ignored in favor of pragmatism. It is important at all costs to remain a
> >player in the game. 
> >
> No, it isn't. You end up being more concerned with being in the game than
> with achieving your goals. Sometimes, you have to kick the board over.
> 
> I think it is more important to make the laws unenforceable (and make such
> workarounds useful to the average netizen), than it is to try to keep the
> government from passing laws. The work of people like Jim Ray and Phillip
> Baker is crucial here.
> 
> The government is unlikely to pass laws to limit its own authority, on any
> issue -- even those who might not want to use a particular power would
> still want to keep it around 'just in case'. 
> 
> We cannot count on government to protect our freedoms. Therefore, we must
> make it irrelevant to the exercise of those freedoms.
> 
> >Instead of opposing bad crypto legislation, we should instead work inside
> >the process, to gain a seat at the table. That is why it is highly
> >significant that both Commerce and FBI want to rid us of our freedom but
> >would do it in subtly different ways. 
> 
> Not really, know. It's unlikely that a "Let's you and him fight" strategy
> would prove effective, since this isn't just an interdepartmental turf
> squabble. They will strip our freedoms first, and argue over who gets the
> thumbscrews second.
> 
>