From: Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 10:14:58 -0700 (PDT)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: DirFBI: Danger of Encryption
Message-ID: <199807131715.TAA06057@basement.replay.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Sunday, July 12, 1998, in The New York Times, Louis J. Freeh 
had the unmitigated gall of a lying Nazi Fuck to write:

> To the Editor:
> 
> Re "Privacy in the Digital Age" (editorial, July 6): No law 
> enforcement agency is "trying hard to prevent the growing 
> use of encryption." 

In the face of such overwhelming evidence as virtually 
litters the landscape and graces more than one court docket,
how can Louis Fuck-the-Free open with such a bald-faced lie, 
unsupported by any data or argument whatsoever? His own 
agency, not to mention several "non-law-enforcement" agencies 
(is this the lawyer's catch in his assertion?) have been 
lobbying _vigorously_ and without letup for several years
now to "prevent the growing use of encryption." The whole
export control regime for encryption has as its sole purpose
to "prevent the growing use of encryption."

I'm all for a constitutional amendment that would put this 
kind of bald-faced lying by high public officials on the same 
footing as treason, with the same penalties.

> But encryption represents a serious public safety concern. 

It sure does! The lack of widely available, fully functional 
strong crypto is a national and individual weakness that 
allows control freak fucks like Louis to make a reach for 
the ultimate levers of control and cement us into the 
ultimate surveillance state, from which there will be no
return.

> We are open to any solution that recognizes that it is 
> the ability to collect electronic evidence that has 
> allowed us to prevent airliners from being bombed and 
> to put major drug dealers behind bars.

<SNORT!> Right! Like you prevented TWA 800, Lockerbee, and
the ValuJet eaten in midair by illegally transported live 
oxygen canisters? Just HOW MANY AIRLINERS HAVE YOU SAVED,
you lying Nazi fuck?

Don't talk to us about the drug dealers... the ones who 
wouldn't be able to earn a penny if it weren't for the 
War on Drugs in the first place. We already know that the
pharmaceutical market value of a dose of heroin is something
like 25 cents, and that the only reason those addicts are
breaking into our homes and killing us on the streets is
because the GOVERNMENT has made it illegal for them to 
obtain their sleepytime meds at reasonable prices that even
a minimum-wage burger flipper could afford if he wanted to
waste himself that way.

> Key escrow is one possible solution. 

No it isn't. It's not a solution to anything at all. It's 
the destruction of privacy through more heavy-handed tactics 
and intrusion into private affairs. It's the police state's
wet dream, second only to full, real time monitoring of 
everything and everything. One step at a time, though, eh,
lying Nazi fuck?

> There are others, and certainly a statutory scheme can 
> be devised that will all but eliminate any risk of abuse 
> by law enforcement. 

You must be taking some of those drugs your agents seize! If
there is one constant, one unchangeable feature of government
landscape, it is that NO POWER can be safeguarded against 
abuse, and that EVERY POWER will be abused, just some more
than others. This claim is an insult to the intelligence of
even the most retarded, obedient American. Your mother 
clearly didn't wash your mouth with a strong enough brand of
laundry soap to make an impression on your little proto-Nazi
mind.

We should really suspend the ENTIRE debate right now, pending
the prosecution and imprisonment of the thousands of FBI
personnel involved in past, DOCUMENTED violations of rights.
Before we even take you seriously I want to see the asses of
the SAs who have done "black bag jobs", who have killed and 
maimed men, women and children, who have instigated unlawful
acts by incompetents through agents provocateurs, AND their 
SACs, AND their authorizing DDs, etc., ALL LANGUISHING IN 
LEVEL 6 FACILITIES doing the the HARD TIME of multiple life 
terms they so richly deserve for having arrogantly and 
systematically violated their oaths of office and the laws 
of the land. Then and ONLY THEN can we "talk," you strutting, 
lying little Nazi fuck!

> But if we do not allow for court-ordered access, for the 
> first time in the history of this country a court order 
> for seizure of evidence will be an absolute nullity.

Utter Nazi rubbish! The truth is that if you _do_ get what 
you want, for the first time in the history of this country 
it will be unlawful or even impossible for Americans to secure 
their communications as they could in 1789 when the Constitution 
was ratified. It is _not_ the ability to protect communications 
and writings that is new -- it is the invasive technology and 
the windfall to you of communications and records being handled 
by third parties that is new. Your claim of being locked out by 
new technology not contemplated by the Constitution is false. 
What was not contemplated and now needs to be remedied is that 
conversations easily secured against eavesdroppers in 1789 
are now easily overheard, and communications easily secured 
in 1789 are now easily violated. THAT'S what needs to be
fixed, NOT your inability to continue and expand your
totalitarian invasion of the natural rights of Americans
and others.

> We want to work with industry on a real solution, 

More bullshit! You want what you want when you want it and
you have been vigorously campaigning for new and expanded
powers to every ear on Capitol Hill that would listen, even
conducting closed briefings to make your one-sided case out 
of the light of public scrutiny. Admit it -- you're a
thorough-going weasel, and proud of it!

> recognizing that those who acquire encryption over the 
> Internet or from abroad naively make assumptions about 
> the security it affords. 

Oh, PLEASE! You have the security of naive Internet users
at heart? Is that what we're supposed to believe? Do you
really think we just fell off the turnip truck? The very
encryption you fear most, strong public key encryption that
you can't break and won't be able to break within the 
predicted lifetime of the universe, is presently available
over the Internet, AND THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT YOU DON'T LIKE,
you lying Nazi fuck!

> We are not fighting encryption, 

HAVE YOU NO SHAME AT ALL, uttering bald-faced lies like that?

> but we know what will happen if technology cannot be made 
> to work for law enforcement as it works for criminals 
> and terrorists.    

We know, too: freedom will continue to have a chance. You 
need to take a deep breath and consider that many people now
understand the sham in which you are involved. More and more
people are wondering why you don't just nail the truly bad
guys the way they have been nailed for millenia -- by good,
conventional police work. Bad guys have been apprehended since
time immemorial without resort to data-mining the databases and
eavesdropping on all forms of communication. Now, just because
technology allows you means of invasion never contemplated by
the Constitution, suddenly you can't do your job without
them? Utter nonsense! Lying Nazi fuck nonsense!

Louis J. FREEH 
(Louis J. FUCK-THE-FREE)

Dir., Federal Bureau of Investigation
(Generalisimo, Federal Bureau of Absolute Control)

Washington, July 10,1998
(Disneyland-on-the-Potomac)

TruthIsAsPlainAsTheNoseOnYourLyingNaziFuckFaceMonger II