Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu sci.crypt:15668 alt.security:10069 comp.org.eff.talk:17078 comp.security.misc:3521 comp.org.acm:1686 comp.org.ieee:1614
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!usenet.coe.montana.edu!news.uoregon.edu!cs.uoregon.edu!ogicse!netnews.nwnet.net!news.u.washington.edu!spiff.seattleu.edu!thebes!ole!rwing!pat
From: pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.security,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.security.misc,comp.org.acm,comp.org.ieee
Subject: Re: Once tapped, your code is no good any more.
Message-ID: <2089@rwing.UUCP>
Date: 21 Apr 93 15:48:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: rwing.2089
References: <1993Apr17.061326.16130@clarinet.com> <2073@rwing.UUCP> <1993Apr19.193528.5655@cs.ucla.edu>
Distribution: na
Organization: Totally Unorganized
Lines: 45

In article <1993Apr19.193528.5655@cs.ucla.edu> geoff@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (Geoffrey Kuenning) writes:
>In article <2073@rwing.UUCP> pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:
>
>> fishing expeditions without the target's knowlege.  Don't give up the
>> right to be safe from that - that should be non-negotiable, and Clinton
>> and Co. know it (which is probably why they quietly developed this thing,
>> figuring if they get it this far, they can ram it on through).
>
>It always amazes me how quick people are to blame whatever
>administration is current for things they couldn't possibly have
>initiated.  This chip had to take *years* to develop, yet already
>we're claiming that the Clinton administration sneaked it in on us.
>Bullshit.  The *Bush* administration and the career Gestapo were
>responsible for this horror, and the careerists presented it to the
>new presidency as a fait accompli.  That doesn't excuse Clinton and
>Gore from criticism for being so stupid as to go for it, but let's lay
>the body at the proper door to start with.

You are so correct - Clinton did not initiate it.  He just cast it in
GRANITE by implimenting, NOT stopping the DECISION.  I also stated in another
post I don't give a damn what administration does it, I still find it
totally unacceptable, and whoever impliments it or rams it down our throats
ought to be run out of office.

Also, Bush was not trying to deprive us of our Second Amendment rights.
Clinton is BUSTING HIS BUTT in that regard.  That reveals a total difference
in philosophy.  Clinton appears to support the idea of TOTAL people
control.  Eavesdropping whenever they feel like it, no real security
for the common person, and no ability to defend oneself against illegal
attack, from whatever source.  "Trust us, we will protect (and control)
you... if we don't find it inconvenient..."

Clinton has also shown his utter contempt for public disclosure and
accountability, as well.  He had plenty of time to change the policy.

HE DIDN'T.  HE EXPANDED ON IT.

I bet had Bush been in office, you would be in there howling louder
than I.

-- 
pat@rwing.uucp      [Without prejudice UCC 1-207]     (Pat Myrto) Seattle, WA
         If all else fails, try:       ...!uunet!pilchuck!rwing!pat
WISDOM: "Only two things are infinite; the universe and human stupidity,
         and I am not sure about the former."              - Albert Einstien
