Calling a Spade a Spade

Mercurial Times ^ | December 3, 2001 | Aaron Armitage

[Mercuria]

Even in the worst of times, there's always something to be grateful for, a silver lining in the darkest cloud. For my part, I'm grateful the attacks and the events after it didn't happen while Bill Clinton was in office. Clinton was fundamentally in love with power. As he did after the bombing in Oklahoma City, and school shootings, he would have taken advantage of the deaths of other Americans for his own political advancement. In an example of extreme hypocrisy, his backers would call his grubby exploitation honoring the dead, and would accuse anyone who disagrees of having no concern for the loss of life. I've never understood the attitude that the way to memorialize the dead is by giving up freedom, the thing that makes us Americans. All I can say is, I'm glad Republicans don't have that attitude.

Picture what Clinton might have done, through crass political manipulation of the crisis. It would have been an excuse for a federal power grab. I'd imagine that he would get laws passed making it legal for his jack-booted thugs to search homes without even telling the person whose property is searched. He's the kind of dangerous politician to have done that, and more. He might have gone further, letting federal law enforcement track what content a person accesses over the internet, and, in his boundless desire to have unlimited authority over ordinary people, he might have required a lower standard of proof than probable cause. Maybe the only requirement would be that it's relevant to an investigation. I'm glad Bush is in office instead.

In 1998, the Clinton administration released plans to implement a set of regulations called "Know Your Customer", which would have required banks to determine the sources of customers' funds, track their transactions, and report anything considered unusual. The reports would be investigated by something called FinCEN, which would keep the records around for the feds to snoop through, regardless of whether there was any evidence of a crime. The whole idea was abandoned after a public outcry. Bill Clinton thus showed himself to be an enemy of financial privacy, and given what we know about his unscrupulousness he wouldn't have hesitated to exploit the situation to resume his attack. Maybe he would have revived Know Your Customer, or maybe he would have attacked privacy some other way. Maybe he would have made all retailers follow the rules banks already follow under the misnamed Bank Secrecy Act.

On that subject, that Democrats give their bills gimmicky, misleading names has always annoyed me. It's as if they know that political truth in advertising would undo them. If the Bank Secrecy Act had been called the Spy Bank Accounts Act, nobody would have voted for it. Clinton probably would've bundled all of it together in a single bill with a gimmick name like the "Patriot Act". I'm glad the honorable man in the White House now would never do something like that.

Beyond Clinton himself, there was his authoritarian Attorney General, Janet Reno. The Butcher of Waco would have plunged headlong into whatever tyranny she thought she could get away with. That was her nature, seeing no reason not to have a police state and every reason to have one, and thus subjugating ordinary people to official thuggery every time she could. By now she might have hundreds of people held incommunicado in jail, without charges, and in secret. The worst fears of the black helicopter crowd would be coming true. That woman, I tell you, had no respect whatsoever for our basic legal traditions. She might even have gotten the FBI to spy on political and religious organizations, creating the opportunity for purely political investigations like J. Edgar Hoover used to have.

But maybe I've taken it too far. Even if she wanted to, the public would never stand for that. War or not, there would be enough public complaint to stop that. And even if the public is too complacent, at least we now have good men in office, who would never take advantage of that kind of complacency.

[A.J.Armitage]

No, I called you a lunatic. Your point?

[MrBambaLaMamba]

The article wins a few points for cleverness, but the means used by the author to make his point is akin to the anti-gunners.

The authority of the Presidential role (gun) is great and can be wielded in life or death situations
Klinton (a gun owner) used or attempted to use the authority of the President (gun) for evil
ergo if President Bush or some future president(other gun owners) uses his authority (gun) in a similar manner, but under significantly different circumstances, he too is evil

There is always danger in government overstepping the authority by passing laws and executive orders, but the Bush administration has yet to show a tendency to follow the lead of the evil Clintonista regime.
I believe posters here understand that eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.
If the author of this piece meant to say just that then he should have plainly said it.

The point - If someday in the future a tyrant arrives...
Is just a big "if", just like the rest of the future, full of unknowns.
Damn life, so unpredictable.

[rdb3]

My point is that you quit like a man and not call me out of my name again.

You've been warned.

[A.J.Armitage]

What does "call me out of my name" mean?

[rdb3]

You refer to me as 'rdb3' or 'sir.' I'm a grown man and demand to be treated as such.

If you choose neither then don't refer to me at all.

Got it?

Good.

[A.J.Armitage]

The difference is that being armed is a natural right, but the government has no natural rights, just delegated powers. So different standards apply.

[Southack]

"these aren't FBI investogators looking, so it's not the same thing."

With sniffers on the internet, you've got a broad spectrum of people including technical personnel who just happen to be FBI, as well as techies in every other company, all watching the plain text data traffic for diagnostic purposes as it crosses problem areas of their equipment.

Why would you call viewing plain text data packets different for one group or another?

[Southack]

"The worst parts of the "Patriot" Act don't sunset, which means that if Bush loses in 2004, the democrat will have them. Then, the only way to take them away will be a major fight."

At one point you managed to claim that the U.S. couldn't give one President "powers" without other Presidents getting them, too. Now you seem to be admitting that if we are willing to have a major fight about one or more powers, that we can take powers away from future Presidents.

[A.J.Armitage]

Techies aren't investigators.

[Southack]

"Packets of information passing through computers is fine, that's how the internet works. A person other than the intended receiver reading it, catching it as it passes over his computer or at any other time, is wrong unless there's a warrant."

Please explain how using sniffers requires a warrant, with sources.

[Southack]

"Techies aren't investigators."

Of course, that was never in question. Now explain why, with sources, that it would make a legal difference for an investigator to be banned from seeing public packets of data that any techie can legally view.

[A.J.Armitage]

At one point you managed to claim that the U.S. couldn't give one President "powers" without other Presidents getting them, too. Now you seem to be admitting that if we are willing to have a major fight about one or more powers, that we can take powers away from future Presidents.

At just about every point you've managed to distort what what I've said.

Let me just ask you this: do you think that the new powers will expire when a democrat takes office?

Don't mess with what I said, just answer yes or no.

[Southack]

"There are other options, specifically, only the intended HUMAN recipient has a right to read it without a warrant. How hard is that to understand? "

So you are claiming that techies need warrants to use sniffers to view data traffic?

[A.J.Armitage]

Please explain how using sniffers requires a warrant, with sources.

At first I thought you were a moron. Now I know that obviously you aren't. Even a retarded third grader would have some clue by now.

No, it's a strategy. A pretty good one at that. But, nothing more than that; you certainly have no real point.

[Southack]

One day you'll learn that it's easier to admit that you are wrong than to try to endlessly dance around in a fruitless attempt to hide the obvious truth of the matter.

You've shown no sources. You've cited no facts. You've been demonstrably proven wrong time after time in post after post, yet none of that deters you in the least.

I've shown you why Carnivore is legal. I've shown you why sniffers are legal. I've explained to you how the Internet works. I've explained that machines and software MUST read every packet of data traffic in order for the Internet to function and function correctly. I've explained that public funds were used to build the original Internet backbone. I've given examples of people who legally read messages that aren't intended for them in order to diagnose technical problems.

But none of that can possibly soak through your Libertarian anti-logic filter. Only if I claim that the government is bad (except for the Internet and e-mail, 'cause Libertarians cling to those as if they were sacred rights) would you dare open up to the possibility of agreeing with me.

Sad.

There is a tenant in science called "disprovability." Theories which can be shown to have a theoretical way of disproving them can be considered worthy of scientific pursuit. In your case, I'd rephrase that tenant to ask you to point out just what would have to be said for you to ever admit that you were wrong.

Unfortunately, I'm almost certain that you would provide no black and white "disprovability" test for that tenant.

Of course, the good news about that anticipated response (or more accurately, estimated lack of response), is that it would only demonstrate that you aren't worth pursuing.

For someone who subscribes to a radical fringe ideology (i.e., Libertarianism) which has a stated goal of increasing the size of its membership, that's a bad position to be in. You aren't making friends or convincing others with your ludicrous circumlocutions. People who have never heard of "Libertarianism" are certainly going to be turned off by your behavior, as well as your destinct lack of intellectual depth and honesty in this and other threads.

If the Democrats or Republicans wanted to destroy the chances of new members joining the Libertarian Party, they could hardly do better than to place your personality onto chat boards across this great nation and claim to be an example of a Libertarian.

[A.J.Armitage]

You've shown no sources.

Neither have you. In fact, you explicitly refused to.

I've shown you why Carnivore is legal.

No, you haven't.

I've explained that machines and software MUST read every packet of data traffic in order for the Internet to function and function correctly.

You're right: the computers have to "read" the data they pass along, just as phone lines have to "listen" to every conversation they transmit.

Doesn't prove a damn thing, and never did.

I've explained that public funds were used to build the original Internet backbone.

As a military project.

I've given examples of people who legally read messages that aren't intended for them in order to diagnose technical problems.

People fixing technical issues and people spying are two different things.

In what form, exactly, do they look at it anyway?

[Southack]

"In what form, exactly, do they look at it anyway?"

Sniffers come in different forms. They can show plain text, ascii codes, binary, and hex.

Not that pointing such things out will sway your closed mind, anyway...

[A.J.Armitage]

Sniffers come in different forms. They can show plain text, ascii codes, binary, and hex.

Which doesn't necessarily show any information about the content.

[Southack]

Carnivore is legal for a variety of reasons. The two that come to mind instantly are that the Internet was founded with government funds and still uses taxpayer funds for some backbone and gateway operations, as well as the principle that all machines on the internet backbone need to have public access to read the IP address in the header or every data packet for routing - and must read all other information in each packet to permit the recording, data mirroring, and re-transmission of packets. Other reasons to allow full public access to all backbone hardware would certainly include diagnostic and error correction activities. In short, the Internet doesn't work if routers can't read, decode, and properly route packets; and the Internet won't work well or for long if diagnostic and error corrections are forbidden from reading packets which are destined for other users.

Just as a techie can place software on one of her backbone boxes to track data packet destinations and routing, so too can a government machine read data packets, even if the software on that machine is called Carnivore.