On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 11:08:00PM -0500, Aaron Guy Davies wrote:
> 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.
You're pretty much saying that your post is one big contentless
flame.
--
Yes, I know my enemies.
They're the teachers who tell me to fight me.
Compromise, conformity, assimilation, submission, ignorance,
hypocrisy, brutality, the elite.
All of which are American dreams.
- Rage Against The Machine
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 2734 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/chat/attachments/20020110/43b5b41a/attachment.pgp>
