----- Original Message -----
> Hi.
> 
> If I understand correctly, this is off topic here, as much as generic
> hardware or networking issues or whatever. General cryptology and
> associated legal issues in this sense (again as I understand you) are
> not specific to OpenBSD being vendor neutral issues.
> That said I'm all for this discussion.
> Not to pre-empt others (disregarding the initial negative responses),
> I think you should be aware there's a valid and consistent case to be
> made that this might be one of those cases where you'll get little
> traction.
> My advice, if this thread doesn't get the traction you like; go
> elsewhere.
> Insert quotes from Ben Franklin et al. ... choose your audience.
> 
> Regardless.
> 
> While there's a lot of commonality between the US and some of the
> rest
> of us, we have constitutions of our own (except england of course).
> Please don't fall into the trap that any of this stuff is
> transferrable. That's a point of law and it stands.
> I don't have "freedom of speech", the right to keep and bear arms and
> so on.
> FYI, I live in a democracy, not a republic. We're transitive. There's
> a real world difference.
> 
> Nevertheless, Aristotle nailed this.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modes_of_persuasion
> 
> Those ideas are somewhat intertwined but you've failed.
> 
> You've failed on logos - the facts - give some context. Clear
> context.
> Why do I or anyone else here care about rights violations?
> Without that, prima facie this comes off as a rant without relevance
> ... uname(1) or tread lightly.
> 
> You've failed on your pathos - my sympathy or empathy - this is why
> this is definitely in the off topic "decisions to be made" grey area.
> I don't see a clear connection between LEO and OpenBSD here. See
> previous ... uname(1) or tread lightly.
> 
> You've failed to clarify your ethos - I don't believe you. Your
> constitution is enough authority but I'm not seeing it presented
> appropriately. I admire your conjunction of munitions and the second.
> May I use that?
> In this case though, open sauce, crypto, second, etcetera are an
> entirely different issue to the fourth amendment question -
> protection
> against unreasonable search and seizure.
> You've muddied the waters and failed to convince on either account.
> That's the big deal here. The fourth ...
> 
> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
> papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
> shall
> not be violated ..."
> http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html#4
> 
> First? Sure. Publish, done. Matter of course. No infringements.
> Right?
> Second? Sure. Sidebar. Again off topic but trivially interesting.
> 
> Rubber hose cryptanalysis, the browbeating or otherwise of citizens
> to
> gain passwords so DHS inter alia, i.e. Border Patrol, can look at
> your
> stuff is strictly a fourth amendment issue (obliquely a fifth).
> That's where you should be thinking.
> You live in a common law country with a written constitution - not
> something to be assumed.
> There's a trodden path. Stand your ground - "no officer ... unless
> you
> provide a warrant based on probable cause I won't be giving you my
> key".
> Go read the fourth ...
> The key is standing your ground.
> Get arrested or worse or combinations of whatever and go from there.
> To paraphrase a founding father:
> "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little
> temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
> Trees need iron. Blood serves fine. Ask Thomas Jefferson ...
> Good on you for taking an hour out of your life. Give me something
> more than a hypothesis of how bad things are happening that might be
> violations and how people that I care about are affected on the
> ground
> ...
> Get arrested or GTFO ...
> 
> I'm not Armorican. I read your constitution and your bill of rights
> and study your law and your country.
> I've stood up to LEO here. Describe your experience.
> Light on the hill. Get the fuck up there.
> 
> 

Fantastic points, I'd love to hear more, from both sides.

--Tim

Reply via email to