Subject: Re: from -- RE: [Raven] IP: China spies on its own people

From: "chefren" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 13:13:31 +0100

On 3 Feb 00, at 14:28, [email-masked] wrote:

> [email-masked] was heard mumbling incoherently:
> 
> >Pretty biased without the about 150 people My Lai eh?
> >
> >Old news from before the modern media. Vietnam war with 
> >cruelties like My Lai, pictured naked people running for 
> >napalm and the officer executing a guy on the street in 
> >front of a camera were more or less a turn.
> >
> 
> Well the people were running -from- the napalm not for it.

Excuse for my bad english...

> As to the Vietnamese General "executing a guy on the street in 
> front of a camera".....you shold check your facts more carefully before
> you are lead around like a dog on a leash by the media.  
> 
> Sure the picture is sensational, but only 5 or so minutes before that
> picture was taken (it was a movie/video btw, from which they took that
> one frame) that same general witnessed the chap in question kill several
> of his men, that is why he (the general) shot him.  Pictures do not
> always tell -ALL- the story.  Clearly you are an idiot, you assert as
> fact that which is merely what the media feeds you.

It's still wrong to shoot another person.

> How do -I- know what the general really did?  I was there.  And I -AM-
> ashamed of what some idiot did in the name of the US Army (and by
> extension the USA) at MyLai.

And even you don't know if the guy shot in front of the 
camera was wrong when he shot several of his men. (Maybe 
they raped his mother one minute earlier?).

It's always about which distance you want to take?

It -seems- pretty clear the guy who shooted in front of the 
camera could also have jailed the person he shot and lead 
him to a judge.

+++chefren

p.s. I wouldn't be surprised if more than 150 people whould 
have get the death penalty wrongfully in the US. Please 
don't take this personally, why be ashamed for My Lay and 
not for death penalty?

p.p.s. I still have comparable problems with free use of 
strong encryption...

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

---

From: James Carlson <[email-masked]>
Date: 04 Feb 2000 08:54:38 -0500

> don't take this personally, why be ashamed for My Lay and 

Many of us are.  Off topic, of course.

> p.p.s. I still have comparable problems with free use of 

That's just absurd hyperbole.  Nobody, but nobody, dies as a direct
result of the use of any computer system.  About the worst thing that
happens is carpel tunnel syndrome and an expanding posterior.  Strong
encryption and murder are not comparable by any means.

-- 
James Carlson, System Architect                     <[email-masked]>
IronBridge Networks / 55 Hayden Avenue   71.246W   Vox:  +1 781 372 8132
Lexington MA  02421-7996 / USA           42.423N   Fax:  +1 781 372 8090
"PPP Design and Debugging" --- http://people.ne.mediaone.net/carlson/ppp

---

From: "chefren" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 15:34:40 +0100

On 4 Feb 00, at 8:54, James Carlson wrote:

> result of the use of any computer system.

People were killed by robots or failing medical equipment.

Other people were often responsible for misprogramming.

> About the worst thing that happens is carpel tunnel
> syndrome and an expanding posterior.  Strong encryption
> and murder are not comparable by any means. 

You can gain power the old way by murdering and you can 
gain power by using encryption to hide methods that are 
forbidden. Like setting up a cartel.

+++chefren

---

From: James Carlson <[email-masked]>
Date: 04 Feb 2000 10:11:44 -0500

> People were killed by robots or failing medical equipment.

Those are mechanical issues.  The data itself didn't cause harm.  The
transgressions occurred out here in the real world, not down in the
electrons.

> forbidden. Like setting up a cartel.

I still fail to see the problem.  A "cartel" that merely exchanges
"forbidden" data does nobody any harm.  It's only when the members of
that cartel perform some external *action* that there's a problem, and
it's that action that is subject to ordinary law enforcement.

One of the things that we're dancing around seems to be whether George
Orwell's thoughcrimes are legitimate targets of law enforcement.  Am I
guilty of a crime because I thought about it?  What if I talk about it
with someone else but do nothing and never have the intent of doing
anything?

Some of us, like me, fall on the side of permitting illicit or immoral
thoughts and speech, even if criminals might also think or speak.
Others want to try to prevent crime before it happens by intercepting
speech and prosecuting it.

In any event, those are *legal* viewpoints.  They're not technical.
They're not the subject of this list.  They're not legitimate topics
for the IETF to address at all.

---

From: Ben Laurie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2000 15:25:20 +0000

> transgressions occurred out here in the real world, not down in the

This completely off-topic, but there is a well-known case where people
were killed by faulty software in an X-ray machine (it could set the
machine to "treatment" mode whilst the operator thought it was in "scan"
mode, thus resulting in people getting sufficiently high X-ray doses to
kill them).

Another obvious case that illustrates how you could kill people with
software (though in this case it didn't) was the failure of Ariane.

Cheers,

Ben.

--
SECURE HOSTING AT THE BUNKER! http://www.thebunker.net/hosting.htm

http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html

Y19100 no-prize winner!
http://www.ntk.net/index.cgi?back=2000/now0121.txt

---

From: "chefren" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 17:16:57 +0100

> software (though in this case it didn't) was the failure of Ariane.

I strongly doubt this is off-topic. I estimate a large part 
of the audience of this platform thinks communication being 
simple zeroes and ones can "never" harm people or society 
and thus privacy is the main issue that has to be dealt 
with while thinking about tapping.

On a far larger scale, governments/democracies, it's 
decided on the highest thinkable level, law, it's nonsense 
and laws have been put in place that require tappability.

The proposed text is proof now even IETF keeps mixing up 
belief with democratic reality.

Simply said:

IF the Internet requires tappability it should be 
integrated as well as possible to get the safest design 
concerning privacy of the users.

+++chefren