Subject: RE: [Raven] Congressman Bob Barr thanks IETF for not doing the wi retap thang

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 16:57:40 -0600

> But he has been very good on privacy issues, as anyone who 
> has followed his legislative and privacy record knows.

Unless Bob Barr doesn't approve of your sex life, in
which case he believes that you do not have the right
to engage in consensual acts with another adult in
your own home.  He also thinks that giving his own
religious beliefs the force of law is a dandy thing to
do, which is also (arguably) a privacy issue.

Barr's trying to grab himself some visibility on 
internet stuff and he's using the wiretap stuff to do 
it, even though he really hasn't been able to formulate
a coherent statement on the matter other than "wiretap
bad, freedom good."

Melinda

_______________________________________________
raven mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/raven

---

From: Declan McCullagh <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 18:02:36 -0500

Melinda, I'm hardly a defender of Bob Barr, as my previous message makes 
clear. But frothing doesn't cut it. Barr is a former US attorney and 
(believe it or not, based on my interviews with him) a pretty sharp fellow.

Of course he's a religious right wacko, but when the Republicans control 
the Congress, religious right wackos who care about privacy can move some 
legislation. Look at Barr's speech last year at the Computers Freedom and 
Privacy conference, his promised hearings on NSA illegal surveillance, his 
opposition to CALEA, and so on.

He's better than leftist Democrats (who do care about you right to do 
whatever you want in your bedroom, but automatically side with their pal in 
the White House when it comes to wiretapping) on those issues.

-Declan

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 18:32:16 -0800

At 06:02 PM 2/3/00 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>Melinda, I'm hardly a defender of Bob Barr..

With al due respect, what has this discussion got to do with the subject of
this list?

---

From: "chefren" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 13:23:38 +0100

> do, which is also (arguably) a privacy issue.

So he clearly isn't "very good on privacy issues".

> a coherent statement on the matter other than "wiretap

Make such a type head of NSA or CIA and "watch"...

I saw Mc Cain saying something like "whatever I tell you I 
will always tell you the truth"

You have lots of pretty pathetic and higly unrealistic 
politicians over there...

+++chefren

---

From: Ed Stone <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2000 20:38:38 -0500

At 06:02 PM 2/3/2000 , you wrote:
>legislation.

And what we need are anti-religious left-wing wackos, to set things right!

Who are the leading left-wing congress critters who are supporting the 
legal actions against the recent FCC Calea decision, against the DOJ CESA 
proposal, against the network monitoring proposal?
--
--------------------------
Ed Stone
[email-masked]
--------------------------

---

From: Ed Stone <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2000 20:43:28 -0500

>With al due respect, what has this discussion got to do with the subject of

I guess that after the draft, many think the subject of the list has been 
fulfilled. Not right?

---

From: Ed Stone <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2000 20:49:21 -0500

>So he clearly isn't "very good on privacy issues".

Ah the old consenting adults in the privacy of their home line.....

A simple puncture of that follows: Persons A and B, both adults iving in 
the same home consent to an arrangement in which A shoots B in the head in 
front of a camera in return for $500,000 paid to a person B designates. 
This is 1) consenting 2) adults 3) in their home. Next juvenile attempt?

---

From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 20:49:57 -0800

> This is 1) consenting 2) adults 3) in their home. Next juvenile attempt?

This "puncture" is indeed quite juvenile, and utterly misses the point. 
People shooting people in the privacy of their homes is *still* no basis
for removing privacy rights, much *less* private consenting sexual
behavior.  If Mr Barr indeed thinks that private sexual behavior is
grounds for going around privacy rights, then his position is flawed. 

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2000 11:37:13 -0800

>I guess that after the draft, many think the subject of the list has been 

The subject of the list remains discussing what the IETF should or should
not be doing about wiretap. In context, I would like to believe that is
mostly has to do with getting the current draft statement right, and
pointing out anything else that is important and might be missed. I note
that Chris Savage has been trying to do exactly that; I can't say that much
of the rest of this mail over the past week seems related to that. The fact
that you have decided that the work is done is not an invitation to useless
and pointless chatter.

Gouges at people, including but in no sense limited to countries that have
different viewpoints on the topic than you hold, congressmen,
left-wing-wackos, right-wing-wackos, low-flying-wackos, submarine-wackos,
and other people who have taken the time to contribute to the discussion,
are off-topic.

I utterly fail to see any connection between "consenting adults" and
"communications diverted without the communicator's knowledge or consent".

When the statement is completed, we will indeed take the list down. There
is so much noise here it is hard to distinguish which few notes add signal,
and last I checked the IETF was intended to be about signal.