Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!tektronix!tekcrl!tekfdi!videovax!stever From: stever@videovax.UUCP Newsgroups: sci.crypt Subject: Re: An interesting message from SECURITY-DIGEST@RUTGERS Message-ID: <4639@videovax.Tek.COM> Date: Thu, 22-Oct-87 17:34:24 EST Article-I.D.: videovax.4639 Posted: Thu Oct 22 17:34:24 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 25-Oct-87 06:06:20 EST References: <7449@reed.UUCP> <8746@utzoo.UUCP> <471@auscso.UUCP> <5416@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <4623@videovax.Tek.COM> <5534@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> Reply-To: stever@videovax.Tek.COM (Steven E. Rice, P.E.) Organization: Tektronix Television Systems, Beaverton, Oregon Lines: 94 Keywords: NSA, DES, STU-III Summary: Beware of tilting at windmills! In article <5534@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, James Moore (jmm@thoth16.berkeley.edu.BERKELEY.EDU) writes: [ quotes and such deleted ] > I can say whatever I want to. Once I have said it, I am responsible > for my statements, and if if it decided in court that I violated laws > regarding libel, endangering public safety by screaming 'fire,' or > telling the Soviets the exact location of every vitally important > widget in the US Navy, then I can be fined or jailed. HOWEVER, none > of this gives the government the right to listen to my private phone > conversations (inside or outside the United States - I am aware of the > court's decision and I think it is wrong) before a suspicion of guilt > has been established and a warrant issued by a court. Three misconceptions here, at least: 1. That disagreement with a court decision affects the validity of the decision. 2. That the government must wait for overt signs that a crime has been or is being committed before taking action. 3. That any one of us on the net (or elsewhere) has the ability to decide that "none of this gives the government the right to listen to my private phone conversations . . ." The first misconception is prevalent, but obviously wrong. After all, burglars clearly disagree with court decisions upholding burglary statutes. But burglars are convicted and imprisoned daily, nonetheless. The second misconception is also clearly not true. The recent trials of numerous Mafia bosses were based in large part on evidence gained by wiretaps. And those wiretaps were permitted by the courts because a much weaker standard of proof had been met than would be required at a trial. Basically, the warrants were issued because there was reason to believe that a crime might have been committed, or was about to be committed. Like the first and second misconceptions, the third is also clearly not true. Our system, as it is presently constituted, places the Supreme Court in the position of final arbiter of what is and what is not constitutional. It turns out that having a final arbiter is essential -- otherwise, we would have unending standoffs between factions divided over every conceivable issue. Do you believe that the paper dollars you use are "legal money"? Well, there is a contingent that does not, and argues that because the money we are using is not gold or silver (and therefore "not constitutional"), they don't have to pay taxes. (Are you willing to abide by their refusal to pay taxes, thereby increasing your own?) The Supreme Court has already spoken to this issue, rejecting the argument that our money is "unconstitutional". Those who disagree must still pay taxes. Similarly, there is a contingent that believes that the government does not have the right to listen to phone conversations, etc. The point that needs to be understood is that this is true *only if the Supreme Court agrees*! If the Supreme Court says that the government has the right, then it does have the right!!! Our Constitution is a marvelous instrument for protecting our freedoms. However, the Constitution applies to everyday life precisely and only as it is interpreted by the nine Justices of the Supreme Court. If you disagree with the Court's interpretations, you can: 1. Initiate a court case involving the issue in question, and ask the Supreme Court to reverse itself. 2. Ask the President to appoint Justices who agree with you (when and if he gets the opportunity). 3. Ask the Congress to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in the area(s) you are concerned about. 4. Ask the Congress to remove (by impeachment) the Justices who have been in the majority on decisions you disapprove of. 5. Ask the Congress to initiate a Constitutional Amendment embodying changes that will produce the results you desire. 6. Ask the States to petition for a Constitutional Convention (the legislatures of 38 states will have to pass a resolution requesting that such a convention be convened). Reality is sometimes a bit uncomfortable to accept, but it is better to face unpleasant realities than to live in a dream world! All else is just tilting at windmills. Steve Rice ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- new: stever@videovax.tv.Tek.com old: {decvax | hplabs | ihnp4 | uw-beaver}!tektronix!videovax!stever