🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <CnHFHx.E97@reptiles.org> jim@reptiles.org (Jim Mercer) writes:
>In article <barryCnGDHK.HJK@netcom.com>, Kenn Barry <barry@netcom.com> wrote:
>>	Jim, you are the whiniest loser posting on this whole topic, and
>>that's a fact. But "smear information" is cute, kind of a censor's
>>self-parody.
>
>some times there is such a thing as too many rights.

	Another ringing phrase spoken only by those crypto-censors who
are also fond of saying, "I'm against censorship, but..."

>it is commonly accepted that in a truely free environment, you can do whatever
>you want so long as it does not have detrimental effects on others.

	You should really get an education. Even in _Canada_ you're
allowed to do all kinds of things that might have a detrimental effect
on others. The missing phrases are "with malice" or "reckless
endangerment".

>intentionally punting holmonka info into ontario is detrimental to people
>in ontario.

	...in your uninformed opinion, which I do not value. I believe
this whole controversy will have neutral-to-positive effects on the
people of Ontario, as the authorities get their collective faces
repeatedly rubbed in the fact that the ban is both stupid and
impractical.

>i think that by now the point has been made that you can't stop the flow
>of information across the electronic media.

	Then what _is_ your point?? People posting facts about the case
aren't your problem, idiots in local positions of authority are, and I
can't help you with that problem, beyond providing minor opportunities
for them to display their idiocy in public, and thus discredit
themselves. Again, people posting facts on the case are irrelevant at
worst, and helpful at best, in alleviating Ontario's censorship
problem.

>>>freedom of information zealots are pushing this issue for no good reason
>>>than the fact that the court tried to keep the details secret.
>>
>>	That IS a good reason, farmboy.
>
>hmmm, so are you saying that nothing should be secret?

	There's a method of keeping secrets that's as old as humanity,
and perfectly effective: you don't tell anyone. This is relevant. It's
irrelevant to the Homulka case because there are no "secrets" involved
in that case. The trial and Karla's plea are a matter of _public_
record, and the trial itself was public. The need for trials being
public goes back to the time of Henry VII and his "star chamber", and is
thus part of the tradition of both of our countries.

	But the judge thinks he can have it both ways; I guess being a
judge can give one an exaggerated sense of one's power :-). Reporters
allowed, but they can't write their stories. Now _that_, sonny, is
censorship, the pure coin. It's _prima facie_ offensive to anyone who
actually understands why a free press is important, and it's impractical
to boot, as subsequent events have proven beyond doubt - the "secret" is
out.

>i suppose you support the clipper proposal too.

	*Heh*. More megalomania. Even if the proposal goes through,
Clipper will last exactly as long as it takes for the details of its
back door to become public knowledge. At that point the spooks will
inform the world that every piece of communications equipment in
existence must be upgraded, and John Q. Public will laugh, having just
had his face rubbed in the realities of putting a back door in
encryption schemes.

	Actually, Clipper illustrates the problem with your point of
view very well. Let's imagine the Clipper bill passes. If nearly
everyone thought like you, they'll all be good citizens, use their
Clippers, and only maybe a couple hundred people will try to get away
with secure encryption, a small enough number for law enforcement to
deal with. End result: your sort of "good citizen" hands their freedom
to their gov't on a platter.

	Fortunately, in real life, Congress can pass whatever it likes,
people by the hundreds of thousands will still use PGP and other
unlicensed schemes, gov't officials will then get to view with alarm,
lecture and dither, and eventually figure out how to say that secure
encryption was a good idea all along, and moreover, they were _always_
in favor of it :-).

	Even 1000 years later, Canute can't make the tide obey him.

-  From the Crow's Nest  -                Kenn Barry
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTRIC AVENUE:    			barry@netcom.com