[ale] [OT] encryption rights under attack - was Reignited: Linux apparently illegal in MA

[aaron]

I just want to express thanks to Robert for the excellent (and thorough)
reply and comments on the issues of this thread -- said about everything
I was preparing to and then some. However, I think the discussion dances
around the bigger elephants in the room, so I still have something to  
add
in that regard...

It seems to me that over the past 40 years most of America has  
watched in
silent complacency as the shadow of Orwell's Big Brother government has
steadily darkened our national skies. Political issues have become
increasingly and intentionally radicalized for divisive effect and the
operations of our government made so insane or incompetent or extremist,
(in a word, so Orwellian) that the whole massive mess seems too ugly
and intractable to face -- the distance of apathy becomes the only way
to protect one's sanity.

Throwing in the towel on political participation or hiding in horror
seems a reasonable response to this expanding Orwellian environment,
but it is also the response that the powers generating that environment
are are counting on. Thus we've suffered endless insane wars on nouns
like "drugs" and "terrorism" and "axis of evil" that have, like the
perpetual wars of Orwell's book, been employed as the State's excuse
for the militarization of our police and privatization of our defense
forces, corrupting them into brutal and sadistic mercenary torturers.
We've suffered the accompanying assaults on Human Rights and Civil
Liberties as evidenced by draconian, freedom killing laws with
duplicitous (Orwellian) labels like the "Patriot Act" (the Patricide
Act that killed the dreams of the founding fathers) and the DMCA
(the protectionist corporate media assault on free speech in
electronic communications).

The present day correlations to the Big Brother tools of oppression
described in Orwell's uber fascist world could fill another book, but
in all cases the abuses of the Big Brother State are systematically
entrenched and enforced through the sensationalized, fear factory
propaganda of a compliant mass media. In the extremes depicted in the
1984 world, even our most basic human nature is overwhelmed by a
manufactured, manipulated, religiously fervent patriotic hysteria,
one so extreme and twisted that every expression of human love and
sexuality is vilified in the common culture as a "sex crime" -- the
hates of homophobia taken to their logical excess, I suppose.
Frightening to see how even that most extreme aspect of the 1984 horror
show is pushing its way into the hate driven propaganda of our real
world cultural consciousness, to the point that someone would argue
that all our rights should be abdicated whenever the State makes any
kind of claim that a crime has a sexually related component.

For myself, I abandoned the apathy of disgust a long time ago and
have become an increasingly involved and informed citizen in response
to the atrocities and absurdities of an increasingly fascist government.
If we care at all about the future fate of humanity, then we can't
afford the luxury of disinterested ignorance and denial any longer.
It seems to me the choice is the same as it has always been -- either
be silent, alone, imprisoned and tortured, or speak out, en mass, and
stand together for the ideals of freedom and democracy.


On 2009, May, 24, , at 3:22 AM, Robert Reese~ wrote:
>>> A silent voice harks no dissent.  Which is exactly WHY I get bent
>>> out of shape,
>>> and so should every American when this happens.  Not getting bent
>>> out of shape
>>> and voicing it is exactly why cops being 'douchebags' happens a
>>> lot more than people believe.  cD
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, yeah. It's easy to be high and mighty and indignant. Do it
>> too often, and you might need to go visit a pre-school and relearn
>> the tale of one kid who cried wolf a little too often.
>
> That is a different tale as the analogy is false.  The little boy  
> who cried wolf
> did so without the presence of an actual wolf.  I'm rather like a  
> strict referee
> that honestly takes his job seriously and without preference: I'll  
> call a foul
> each and every time one occurs.  If one team seems to be getting a  
> lot of fouls
> it's because they're committing them.  If they don't like the image  
> they receive
> by getting tagged so often then their recourse is to stop  
> committing so many
> fouls.
>
>
>> If the court had also gone toward douchebaggery, my dissent would
>> have been quite loud, though not applied in this venue. I don't
>> believe in impotent nerd rage over an internet forum or mailing
>> list.
>
> There is nothing impotent in the power of networking, awareness,  
> and vigilance.
> ;c)  If just five more people learned about this abuse of power by  
> the police
> and the original courts, and the government in general, those are  
> five more
> people who can each tell more people as well as create and join  
> informed
> discussions.
>
>
>> I much prefer having words with my elected representatives
>> and my fellow constituents. It tends to be a little bit more
>> effective.
>
> You know what's even more effective?  Mobs ringing the elected  
> representative's
> phones and fax machines off the hook, reporters beating down his or  
> her doors,
> and many constituents asking informed questions and expressing  
> their own words
> of concern and dissent.
>
>
>> People in positions of authority acting like douchebags
>> is an ever present problem.
>
> All the more reason to be vocal about the abuse.  The more they do  
> it, the more
> we need to.
>
>
>> It's hardly a character flaw that is
>> unique to law enforcement. I'm more concerned with the people that
>> they're answerable to. Most judges have their heads on straight,
>> thankfully.
>
> It shouldn't get to the judge in the first place.  And I would not  
> go so far as
> to say 'most' but rather 'many'.  Unfortunately, too many have  
> their head
> straight elsewhere and make damaging decisions.  And many up the  
> ladder follow
> suit.
>
>
>>> Do you actually believe that?  I used to.  This can, and has,
>>> happened _here_ in
>>> the U.S.  Just three months ago, and only three months after the
>>> above ruling on RIPA Pt. III, we get this decision:
>>>
>>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10172866-38.html
>>> <http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10172866-38.html>
>>>
>>
>> Man, I knew what this issue was before I even clicked on it, and
>> it's just one more instance of sensationalist reporting.
>
> Hmm.... fact-based reporting being represented by someone as  
> sensationalism?
> Where've I heard that one before?  Oh, yes, propaganda 101.  Only  
> here it won't
> work.
>
>
>> It's really hard to infringe on rights which you've given up.
>
> You give them up when you won't stand up for them or stand up for  
> the next
> person's rights.  Do that too often and you'll lose them without  
> realizing it.
>
>
>> The
>> dude was read his Miranda rights, and like a moron, he waived them
>> and copped to downloading child porn.
>
> Completely and utterly beside the point and has no bearing on the  
> issue.
>
>
>> He was not beaten, the border
>> guard did not threaten him with detainment if he didn't decrypt the
>> hard drive.
>
> Completely and utterly beside the point and has no bearing on the  
> issue.
>
>
>> Sorry, but I'm not going to bat for a pedophile,
>> especially one who's apparently intelligent enough to use
>> encryption, but not intelligent enough to dismount the encrypted
>> volume before he passes through a border checkpoint.
>
> You don't go to bat for very many people, do you?  Ask the  
> Protestants in 1930's
> Germany how that worked for them.
>
> That's a big part of the problem... you just don't get it.  It  
> doesn't matter
> whether he's guilty or not.  This is a clear danger to EVERYONE'S  
> Fifth
> Amendment rights, not just his.  It's called a "Precedence".  It's  
> also called
> "Case Law".  What you don't know or understand about these terms  
> will hurt you
> and the rest of our society.
>
>
>> He did wrong,
>> he screwed up and cheated himself out of his rights. I have no
>> problem with a court order requiring him to decrypt the drive
>> before the grand jury, because he's already given up his 5th
>> amendment rights on that score. I'd be surprised if the appellate
>> court didn't uphold the ruling.
>
> No, he did not give up his 5th Amendment rights.  You have a right  
> to waive a
> portion and then reclaim the 5th again.  What you've already done  
> or said can be
> used against you, but you cannot be compelled to repeat what you've  
> done or said
> nor can you be compelled to further implicate yourself.
>
> But you are unfamiliar with the nuances of this case, evidently.   
> When he waived
> his Miranda rights and admitted to "_possibly_ having child porn"  
> on his
> computer and the officer found something that _may or may not_ be  
> child
> pornography, he has to contend with the possibility of being  
> convicted by his
> own statements as well as the testimony of the arresting officer.   
> He can go to
> court and the DA can try to get a conviction; the problem there is  
> "possibly"
> and "might be" tend to infer reasonable doubt.
>
> Except the problem is the officer failed to secure the evidence,  
> which may or
> MAY NOT be illegal pornography.  That is important.  Had the  
> officer kept the
> laptop powered and decrypted, the investigators would have had  
> everything they
> needed to proceed with a case and with neither a 4th nor a 5th  
> Amendment issue.
> They did not.  They don't now get the right to demand that he again  
> waive his
> Fifth Amendment right and decrypt his computer.
>
> Was he in idiot?  Sure.  But he still has rights; the very same  
> rights you and I
> do.  Do I like people that view child porn.  Not at all.  But what  
> affects them
> affects us when it comes to the justice system.  If you allow their  
> rights to be
> abused and ignored then you cannot complain when yours are also  
> abused and
> ignored.
>
> Something you said is also a problem: you called him a pedophile.   
> You have no
> ability to do so, even if there was the potential for child  
> pornography on his
> computer.  Why not?  Simple.  He didn't intend, according to him,  
> to have any of
> that on his computer.  Heck, he was being quite cooperative and  
> honest with the
> officer so there is no reason to doubt his claim of reasoned  
> innocence.  He used
> a news scraper to download the binary attachments from a newsgroup  
> specializing
> in porn.  He later reviews and discards the images he neither  
> wants, likes, or
> he finds objectionable.  Frequently, in those scrapes, the software  
> downloads
> illegal images.  He had not taken the time to remove those images  
> before
> crossing the border.  Stupid?  Yes.  Criminal?  No.  Nor does that  
> make him a
> pedophile.  Further, you should at least call him a 'suspected'  
> pedophile since
> he has not yet been legally found as such.  And until then you have  
> no right to
> call him a pedophile.
>
>
>> I would see to make a case out of is a 4th
>> amendment issue, especially given ICE's legal right to seize
>> laptops for an indefinite period of time.
>
> That too.
>
>
>> But truth be told, if I'm
>> a pedophile, I'd rather lose the laptop with the drive still
>> encrypted and refuse to turn over my passphrase (that would be
>> asserting my 5th amendment rights) than to waive them and be facing
>> a grand jury indictment for child pornography.
>
> Exactly!  Now you're getting the picture that this is indeed a 5th  
> Amendment
> case.  But even if you weren't, by your reasoning he must be guilty  
> because
> otherwise he'd have no reason to not enter his passphrase.  Do you  
> want to ride
> that slippery slope?
>
>
>> I know this is hard to hear since it isn't lockstep with your blind
>> fanaticism, but please try to choose object lessons that will stand
>> up to scrutiny.
>
> These lessons seem to be standing quite well on their own, but  
> thank you for
> your concern.
>
>
>> Bad guy incriminates himself through own stupidity
>> is not a failure in the system. The object lesson you want this to
>> be is that 'big bad government tramples on individuals rights.'
>> What is instead is 'stupid criminal shoots self in foot.' This guy
>> should be getting a darwin award, not a vigorous defense from
>> crypto proponents.
>
> I'm hoping you'll retract the above paragraph now that you've been  
> given
> guidance on why its wrong.
>
>
>>> Coincidence?  You tell me.  The Fifth Amendment may will survive
>>> once this gets
>>> higher into the appeals courts.  But it never should have gotten
>>> to *any* court in the first place
>>>
>>
>> Right, because letting a federal agent see you have kiddie porn on
>> your hard drive, and then admitting that you downloaded kiddie porn
>> is something that should in no way ever see the inside of the court.
>
> Incorrect.  But we went over that above, too.
>
>
>> Seriously, do you actually pay attention to the entire case or do
>> you just pick out the parts that you don't like and ignore anything
>> which may be detrimental to your point of view?
>
> As you have found, I pay attention to entire cases, warts and  
> all.  ;c)
>
> Case in point: I remember the Rodney King case and watched it  
> acutely.  I felt
> little sympathy for Rodney himself as I am a proponent of ending  
> dangerous
> pursuits with lethal force before someone gets hurt or killed, and  
> a minimum of
> 10 years without early release for running.  However, when Rodney  
> was clearly on
> the ground, hand-cuffed, and surrounded by no less than TEN cops  
> which meant he
> posed NO FURTHER THREAT, there was no reason to beat him the way  
> they did.  I,
> too, was outraged when the cops were found not guilty.
>
> However, it seems that unless the case is pure Virgin Mary clean  
> without even a
> shadow of potential dirt, you won't even bother to consider its  
> individual
> merits.  Prove me wrong, please.  I really, really hope you do.
>
>
======
>>> Don't hold out HOPE for the Obama administration to save us.
>>> Back during
>>
>> Of course not, I voted Republican like a good Georgian.
>
> I voted for Bob Barr, a good Georgian I like.  Had he made it, we  
> never would
> have had these discussions.
>
> Cheers,
> Robert~

Indeed. Thinking that either "half" of the corrupted and intertwined
status quo duopoly can restore our democracy of themselves is delusional
-- all of their entrenched, greed motivated interests are tied to
defending the corporate welfare police state, the corporate media fear
factories and all the associated military death machine industries.
This new administration has taken some tentative, hopeful steps toward
recognizing and dismantling the mechanisms of fascism (e.g. restoring
reasoned dialogue and basic competence to our government, appointing a
drug policy minister who will end the fraudulent "war" on drugs in
favor of sane and humane policies), but effectively restoring our
nation and its constitutional principles is still going to take massive
activism and, to make those changes last, the establishment of multiple
parties in the political process.  So, like Robert, I'm an advocate of
an outside political party, because when it comes to concerns for Civil
Liberties and Human Rights and democracy, parties like the Greens and
Libertarians are often the only way to vote for a sane and civil
democrative nation of conscience that is worthy of our patriotism.

peace
aaron