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
