[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Debian IS for the enterprise (Was: Debian Enterprise?)



>On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 05:10:08PM +0100, Eike zyro Sauer wrote:
>> Tom schrieb:
>> > Intentionally causing everybody's mail traffic to look like bomb threats

>> > is pretty close to yelling "Fire" in a theatre.
>> 
>> If your government (which ever that might be) isn't able to 
>> tell apart mailing lists from terrorists' conspirative emails, 
>> you really should vote for another one.
>
>Sorry, you don't get to play the moral high ground on this.
>Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre does not mean you are starting 
>fires.  It means you are intentionally causing disruption for the 
>express purpose of disrputing society -- and that is a right you DO NOT 
>have.
>
>You have a right to protest -- sure -- but that right is not limitless.
>
>We have a saying: "Your right to swing your fist stops at my nose."
>
>You are forcing me to go along with something I don't believe in.  It's 
>very rude.
>
>

The intention appending keywords to mail is to make it impossible to conduct
_mass_surveillance_ , by monitoring all
email looking for stuff "you dont like".

That stuff _may_ be terrorist action, but it can, and frequently
has been, legitimate political and social action: I do not want a government
I disapprove of having the ability to know
whats going on in the political opposition and neutralising it.

There are other methods of fighting crimes such as terrorism,
and the ones we allow governments to use in our name must
be targetted to the minority conducting these acts. 

Hence, the reason I don't include such tag lines (any more) to my mail is that
I believe modern filters in Echelon, etc. can
easily dismiss them. I believe Echelon should be dismantled, 
and approve strongly of disrupting such things. 

Can we take this thread to somewhere more relevant? 
debian-curiosa for example (it is Debian related, in that
its spook.el in emacs generating this stuff :-)

- Alastair McKinstry



Reply to: