🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec14.205945.20132@mtu.edu>, cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
writes:
|>In article <1992Dec14.163420.26160@news.eng.convex.com>, gardner@convex.com
|>(Steve Gardner) writes:
|>
|>> 	If we fail to trim back the national security state in the wake of
|>> 	the demise of the USSR we will undoubtedly have to fight them 
|>> 	for our constitutional rights in the near future. Idle hands are
|>> 	the devils workshop folks.  Isn't that pretty obvious?
|>
|>"Near future"?  I think we're already to the point of fighting for our
|>Constitutional Rights.  We have the War on Drugs violating most of the
|>Bill of Rights, and the FBI insisting that fiber optic cables have tees
|>in them so they can eavesdrop for "lawful warrant, or other purposes"
|>(I can't think of any "other purposes" that would be "lawful", since
|>a warrant is required for any legal eavesdropping and wiretaps).  As I
|>recall, they also want to prohibit the use of encryption in electronic
|>communications (e-mail, and/or phone), since it would inhibit their
|>ability to eavesdrop.
|>
|>Yes, it's pretty obvious...

You really seem to have a problem with your government there. Over here we have
a rather different arrangement, the government spends its time stopping everyone
finding out what it is doing rather than trying to find out what other people
are doing.

Very difficult for MI5 to make those sort of demands, after all they don't
actually exist.


--

Phill Hallam-Baker