|
Public Policy Advocacy
From a post originated by Mr. Sternlight, which he entitled, "Why liberals should mourn the Patel decision":
"Judge Patel has decided that source code is language is speech protected by the Constitution. Let's suppose the decision stands.
Then she has placed us in a situation very like that we've been in with respect to guns and gun control. That is--her decision creates a Constitutional protection for source code. But unlike most speech, source code when used as designed can cause direct consequential physical damage, lock-stepped to the source code itself. The most obvious example is the Source code for a computer virus.
The government cannot ignore this situation, nor would most of us wish it to. New laws against distribution and use of computer viruses would follow, and we'd be in the same situation of turmoil that surrounds the tension between the "right to keep and bear arms" and gun control legislation. We'd be thrust into the same ideological dilemma between public safety and Constitutional protections we are with guns.
Only the attorneys and lobbyists would benefit.
David"
Source: <david-1904961122010001@nntp.netcom.com>
"As readers well know sometimes I agree with government policy positions and sometimes I don't--based on the merits as I see them--usually from the point of view of a professional economist and policy analyst."
Message ID <32D01B2D.ECA@sternlight.com>
"But your question itself contains a logical error. You assume they are civil libertarians and then ask by whom they should be styled. In contrast I suggest they are only masquerading as civil libertarians in this case. The test is, of course, whether they advocate the same rights for those with whom they disagree as they do for themselves. In too many cases they have been advocating the deprivation of other's rights in aid of their own ideological agenda.
For example, one may advocate that one's own use of the SN be voluntary without advocating that others be deprived of that use. In this case too many are advocating that the SN be killed rather than simply being voluntary, i.e. that those who want the SN be deprived of that right.
If that's not (pick one) fascism or neo-Stalinism then I don't know what is.
I want the SN. I don't want to compel others to use it. By trying to kill it their position would deprive me of my right to it. In contrast, my position deprives no one.
I am sorry to say this but in this case the pseudo-libertarians who advocate killing the SN are the enemies of civil liberty."
Source: Message ID <36AE6BFB.5AD60A02@sternlight.com>
"It is simply amazing to me how often when you scratch a rabid "privacy advocate "you find a fascist underneath. Truly private people don't make a spectacle of themselves, attract attention, or make demands. Instead they quietly go about their business of remaining invisible."
Source: <36AD02ED.D15C87BA@sternlight.com>
"But seriously, nobody is a "proponent of weak crypto". Some of us think shorter crypto has its place, particularly since it hasn't been broken to date and would take a major effort so to do for just one key pair. We advocate key length as a function of the sensitivity of the traffic, the time period during which a particular key pair is in use, and the time period over which the traffic has to remain secret. If you don't understand that, you don't understand crypto."
Source: <6lb361$8v7@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
"Though one may engage in a childish attempt to thumb one's nose at such an attempt by posting gibberish that might be crypto, I don't think most people would want the FBI knocking on their door and asking questions. Thus I see little difficulty in governments who can persuade their legislatures to pass the necessary laws, or government who already have, in enforcing such laws regardless of the ubiquity of PGP prior to such efforts. I don't advocate this, but it's important to face reality.
Civil disobedience only works if you're prepared to go to jail."
Source: <35EB5D67.18203CF2@sternlight.com>
"Let me be clear where I stand personally. As an advocate I do not support suppression of crypto source code in books. But as an analyst, I am compelled to call the underlying issues as I see them, and analytically I think there is a strong case to be made for the subject of this thread. Of course there is also a contrary case, and Stone, in particular, has in some of his posts done a credible job. His arguments from precedent, with citation, are rather better than yours from assertion."
Source: <35EC8E09.B2BB51CC@sternlight.com>
"Read the Amendments you ignorantly refer to without having read. They don't override prior Con Law because they came later but because they explictly repealed earlier provisions. For instance: "21st Amendment Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed." ...
In contrast, the First Amendment contain no language repealing, for example, Article I Section 8."
Source: <david-2904960135240001@nntp.netcom.com>
"It is not up to you what the government "needs". If they need to protect personal data about civilians in their files in communications, that's for Congress to decide, not some thug who never understood baby Samuelson. I use "need" to mean the legitimate activities authorized by Congress for which funds have been appropriated by same. You use "need" to mean who knows what."
Source: <david-2810951925400001@netcom2.netcom.com>
"Note also that had there been no Interstate Commmerce Clause, then it would be correct that State or local communities could determine what was "proper" to be carried on the internet within their jurisdiction. It would make a mess of certain economies of scale, but not everyone got touch tone dialing at once either. The rational solution under those circumstances would be for ISPs to filter based on something like an 80/20 rule--filter that which 80 percent of the jurisdictions found unacceptable, and let the other 20 percent either pay more for local filtering or fend for themselves. I see no difficulty here--the country is crawling with local Internet Service Providers whose market is a part of a large city. Each has its own machines. It would be a simple matter for them to filter newsgroups according to local standards. It would likely require something like what is actually in the bill--as long as the ISP made a good faith effort, they wouldn't be liable for the renegade user. Thus someone who posted forbidden fruit to alt.sci.vegetarian would be on his own.
Note carefully that I don't advocate the above. I simply point out that if we didn't have the Constitution we did, the situation would still be feasible, and that our ability to legislate nationally in the matter is grounded in a specific local (as nations go) part of the Constitution having to do with the promotion of interstate commerce."
Source: <david-3012951127050001@lax-ca25-06.ix.netcom.com>
"I couldn't agree more with the above. Thus there will be a constant struggle between the "people" and the politicians whose oxen are (or might be) gored by the Internet and would thus like to emasculate it."
Source: <david-3012951127050001@lax-ca25-06.ix.netcom.com>
"You're another that flunked second grade reading. I didn't try to bring a supposed conflict into the question of whether or not source code is speech. I said that given that Patel said it is speech, the existing conflict (as evinced by copyright and other laws--clearly copyright law is not "no law") allows for a ruling that though speech, this particular Source code is not protected speech and the Article I Section 8 powers of the Government take precedence. This is not news (it's at the heart of the "Karn" ruling). That the door is open for such a ruling in "Bernstein" has been repeatedly acknowledged even by those who wish to pick a childish and stupid fight by "interpreting" my phrase "left the door open"."
Source: <david-2504961819190001@nntp.netcom.com>
|
