Yes, I know all this. I was merely pointing out that when Travis goes on one of his anarchist rants, it doesn't help anything.
On Fri, 11 Jan 2002, Jack Sidebottom wrote: > Hi, while I agree with some of the things said here I would like to add > that(and I don't mean this in a bad way) America is NOT the Internet. Laws > passed in the States are not binding in other countries in regard to the > net (as much as they would like it to be). > The internet is, and will remain, (as long as we keep fighting those who > are trying to control it) GLOBAL. As for "circumventing" such laws the > answer is in the word you used below - "INFORMATION" If people like us, who > have a common goal (keeping the Internet free from government and big > corporation intervention) SHARE our information to help others that is a > step in the right direction. > You would be suprised how many people out there no Nothing about > Microsoft's DRM or magic lantern or a thousand and one other things that > affect them and their use of the internet ,now and in the Months to come. I > phoned Microsoft in Johannesberg (i live in cape town) this morning asking > why none of the newspapers in South Africa carried any stories about their > involvement with the FBI or stopping support for windows 95,98,98se,etc: or > their patent for DRM, The answer i got was "we try to keep it quiet". So as > i said we must make sure that ALL this type of information is available to > everyone and take it from there. Thanks Jack. > > > > -------Original Message------- > > From: chat at freenetproject.org > Date: 10 January 2002 06:08:26 > To: chat at freenetproject.org > Subject: Re: [freenet-chat] terrorism and Freenet > > On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Travis Bemann wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 09:08:00AM -0700, colbyd wrote: > > > Does anybody know about the anti-terror legislation (USAPA) and how this > > > might be used to hassle peer networking? As I read this law and the > > > Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), it seems that > > > peer networking is in trouble for two main reasons: 1) together, the > laws > > > require that the physical infrastructure be accessible to surveillance, > and > > > 2) lack of judicial oversight in USAPA would allow law enforcement to > > > surreptitiously sabotage peer networks. > > > > > > CALEA requires that law enforcement access to call-identifying > information > > > be unobtrusive and with a minimum of interference with any subscriber's > > > telecommunications service. [47 USCS ? 1002 a(4) (2001)]. This law also > > > requires that law enforcement cannot require or prohibit carriers from > > > implementing equipment or services. [47 USCS ? 1002 b(1)(A)(B) (2001)]. > > > Law enforcement cannot, under CALEA, require a carrier to discontinue > > > access to Freenet. The carrier would only need to provide access to > > > facilities to intercept communications made by a suspect. In USAPA, due > to > > > absence of judicial oversight, law enforcement has no duty to respect > > > virtual networks like Freenet that permit anonymous speech. In addition, > > > the Act requires the Treasury Department (FinCEN) to "combating [sic] > the > > > use of informal, nonbank networks and payment and barter system > mechanisms > > > that permit the transfer of funds or the equivalent of funds without > > > records and without compliance with criminal and tax laws." [310 b(F)]. > > > Under the aegis of USAPA, there is no reason not to believe that a > network > > > like Freenet could be assaulted without judicial oversight by > authorities > > > because it might provide terrorists a place to transfer funds > anonymously. > > > > > > Just wondering if my reading is correct here. > > > > First thing is that all of this is irrelevent. Nothing restricts the > > power and the force of the state except the same of those opposed to > > it. It is not the law which determines something, but rather the > > power and the will of the state. The law is really just a mechanism > > to cow people into submission, by having people already indoctrinated > > to obeying it without thinking, without the state actually having to > > /do/ anything. Therefore, even simply *acknowledging* the law, even > > if one does not try to follow it, makes the state stronger, because of > > one's psychological programming to obey the law. > > And how exactly do your rabid anarchistic babblings help us in our attempt > to *circumvent* such laws? We're looking for *information*, not > propaganda! I sear, sometimes it seems like you and Mark are trying to > outdo each other for the Crazy Ideologue of the List award. > -- > __ __ > / ) / ) > /--/ __. __ ________ / / __. , __o _ _ > / (_(_/|_/ (_(_) / / <_ /__/_(_/|_\/ <__</_/_)_ > > > _______________________________________________ > Chat mailing list > Chat at freenetproject.org > http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat -- __ __ / ) / ) /--/ __. __ ________ / / __. , __o _ _ / (_(_/|_/ (_(_) / / <_ /__/_(_/|_\/ <__</_/_)_ _______________________________________________ Chat mailing list Chat at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
