[Rushtalk] Thoughts

John A. Quayle blueoval57 at verizon.net
Wed Aug 21 12:55:41 MDT 2013


At 12:33 PM 8/21/2013, Tom Matiska wrote:
>I suspect the Feds anger with the encryption folks was for show. 
>They have to be laughing.   The computing power required is a drop 
>in the bucket(pun intended) for the Utah spy center.
>
>Most importantly.... why encrypt political speech here?  1st doesn't 
>protect my right to whisper in the alley,

         Why not?!? A) It's not planning sedition and B) it's no 
different than talking on the phone.

>and the 2nd doesn't protect my right to hide my guns.

         No, but you have a right to being secure in your domicile 
(at which you can hide your weapons, legally).

Like many other areas of American law, the Fourth Amendment finds its 
roots in English legal doctrine. 
<http://www.ask.com/wiki/Sir_Edward_Coke?qsrc=3044>Sir Edward Coke, 
in <http://www.ask.com/wiki/Semayne%27s_case?qsrc=3044>Semayne's case 
(1604), famously stated: "The house of every one is to him as his 
castle and fortress, as well for his defence against injury and 
violence as for his 
repose."<http://www.ask.com/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-2>[2] 
Semayne's Case acknowledged that the King did not have unbridled 
authority to intrude on his subjects' dwellings but recognized that 
government agents were permitted to conduct searches and seizures 
under certain conditions when their purpose was lawful and a warrant 
had been 
obtained.<http://www.ask.com/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-EngAm-3>[3] 


>Use your rights properly or lose them.
>
>Tom
>
>
>
>
>
>
>From: Dennis Putnam <dap1 at bellsouth.net>
>To: rushtalk at csdco.com
>Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 12:14 PM
>Subject: Re: [Rushtalk] Thoughts
>
>Not sure what you are saying but if you mean to imply that the NSA 
>can decrypt PGP you are mostly incorrect. While it is possible to 
>decrypt PGP, the compute power and time needed makes it impractical 
>to do routinely let alone on every encrypted email across the 
>internet. When Phil Zimmerman released the algorithm, the Feds went 
>after him with a vengeance because of the extreme measures needed to 
>decrypt it. It meant the feds could not practically control 
>encryption any more. However, Phil was smart in that he distributed 
>it only domestically so it did not come under any of the federal 
>encryption laws and their attempts to shut him down failed (not for 
>lack of trying). Now the genie is out of the bottle and the Feds can 
>do nothing to stop it, at least domestically. The best they can do 
>is get a subpoena and confiscate your private key from your computer 
>and somehow force you to reveal your pass phrase.
>
>Now, once you decrypt the message on your side, the sender is at 
>your mercy if someone should hack your computer and you saved it 
>decrypted or you should forward it unencrypted. But that burden is 
>on you and not a function of anything the feds can do.
>
>On 8/21/2013 11:42 AM, Tom Matiska wrote:
>>I believe our "security"(spy) agencies were in on the ground floor 
>>of the encryption business. They probably laugh whenever someone 
>>buys one of their products.   As far as being targeted as for being 
>>conservative that horse is out of the barn too.  Every click we 
>>make online paints that picture. When I googled a replacement 
>>gasket for mom's old pressure cooker flags had to go up.    On the 
>>slim chance you're not a watch list just use encryption, and be on 
>>the mother of all watch lists.
>>
>>Most importantly, I don't write anything you don't want them to 
>>read.  Once they get you to whisper in the alley you've 
>>surrendered.   Is that really free speech anymore?     Let them 
>>hear it... in their face.... loud and clear...
>>
>>Tom
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>From: Dennis Putnam <mailto:dap1 at bellsouth.net><dap1 at bellsouth.net>
>>To: Open discussion of current events 
>><mailto:RUSHTALK at csdco.com><RUSHTALK at csdco.com>
>>Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 9:06 AM
>>Subject: [Rushtalk] Thoughts
>>
>>Given the scope of what we now know about NSA spying and that we can
>>easily surmise there is lots more we don't know, I am curious why more
>>people are not using strong encryption for their email such as GPG.
>>
>>It also occurs to me, that since conservatives are being specifically
>>targeted, perhaps this list should adopt encryption. There exists a 3rd
>>party package that is supposed to work with mailman that will do
>>precisely that.
>>
>>Just thinking out loud.
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Rushtalk mailing list
>><mailto:Rushtalk at csdco.com>Rushtalk at csdco.com
>>http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Rushtalk mailing list
>><mailto:Rushtalk at csdco.com>Rushtalk at csdco.com
>>http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Rushtalk mailing list
><mailto:Rushtalk at csdco.com>Rushtalk at csdco.com
>http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Rushtalk mailing list
>Rushtalk at csdco.com
>http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kalos.csdco.com/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20130821/6d4c2a5a/attachment.html 


More information about the Rushtalk mailing list