Slashdot Mirror
Crypto Advocate Under Investigation by FBI
Seth Scali writes "Cryptography advocate and former member of the IETF staff William Simpson is under investigation by the FBI for treason. Apparently, he is accused of 'challenging authorities and laws that may impinge upon his activities'. " As you would imagine, the case involves cryptography and the DOJ/FBI has some other strong feelings about crypto folks.
I have to agree that this article is useless. It also is dubious in other ways, such as misspelling simple words (like "sensored" [sic]).
I would not put much stock in this posting.
I am an American, and I appear to have a much better understanding of constitutional law than you.
It so happens that I have an "actual" copy of the constitution before me. The second amendment reads:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
Exactly. You have the right to bear arms in connection with your service as part of the militia. Thank you for quoting the actual constitution for me, I didn't remember the actual wording off the top of my head. It quite clearly does not grant anyone the right to bear firearms except in relation to their militia service.
According to the United States Code, the militia consists of all able-bodied males over 18. This coincides nicely with "private citizens."
Since you're so good at quoting documents, could you quote this one or at least provide a reference? And "US Code", you say? The amendment deals with the right of a State to maintain a well-regulated militia. I highly doubt any federal law can be made which deals with the composition of a state militia. Further, note that "all able-bodied males" is hardly a well regulated militia. So even if this section of US code exist, it's not relevant to the 2nd Amendment, which deals with "A well regulated militia" maintained by a "State".
I think your argument that the 2nd amendment has been misunderstood for 300 years is rather baseless.
I did not say that the 2nd Amendment has been misunderstood for 300 years. For one, since the 2nd Amendment is only about 210 years ago, this would be a very stupid thing to say. And for two, the US Supreme Court has already correctly pointed that the 2nd Amendment does not guarentee the right of any citizen to keep a firearm for any old reason on several occasions. So, the Supreme Court at least has not misunderstood the constitution, which is good since its part of their job to understand it!
Take your facist ideas back to Japan, please. Where the Shoguns prohibited people from owning weapons.
Why? I would oppose that, just as I oppose excessive gun-control. I support the right of individuals to own firearms. I have never said otherwise. I merely pointed out that the constitution doesn't necessarily do so. I don't suppose lying to support a cause, and I think its stupid to stick your head in the sand pretending the constitution will protect your rights when in fact you need to fight for sane laws if you want your rights in this area protected.
--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
It looks to me like FBI is simply terrorizing those who act outside the established "normal" behavior.
This investigation is of course not a sentence or anything but to me it seems like an act of mental manipulation, warning him not to step over this line again.
Maybe the FBI and other government agencies are just running scared they have no idea how to deal with the internet, so they end up doing these stupid things.
I probably should never have posted anything like this, my travellers visa will most likely not be renewed.
Like someon said: "even if you are a paranoid, does not mean that they are not out to get you"
So what would happen if I got an anti-aircraft gun and just "accidently" shot it down. Perhaps if some of my little terrorist buddies started do things like that. I know what I would do. I would take a picknic lunch and go out on the side of the road and just leasurely eat my lunch while the helicopter wasted thousands of dollars worth of fuel. You haven't broken any laws and it's public property so therefore they can do nothing. Plus with my live net feed I doubt that even then an "accident" would happen.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
This should of course say, "I don't support lying to support a cause..."
--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
One word: Irish.
Alot of fscking good their guns have done for them.
ROTFLOL! Kudos!
Thanks, after reading that article, I needed that.
"Don't mind me cutting myself on Occam's Razor"
Now why would I need a prosthetic arm? Even one that fires shotgun shells would be redundant. Because I've got this wicked Swiss Army Knife.
I'll impale you with the phillips screwdriver blade, I will!
The right to arm bears shall not be infringed upon.
The problem I have with "There's really nothing wrong with that. It's their job to investigate.."
is that the FBI can and has been used as a tool of intimidation/brutality over and over through-out it's history. See Nixon's use of same as an existance proof, or for a more recent version - the Filegate trick pulled by the Clintonistas to get the dirt on their Republican adversaries(not to mention interesting occurences like Waco where the agencies' credibility is trashed.)
You claim that they didn't harass him. Explain that to Richard Jewel(spelling??) another target of "just an investigation."
Have you compiled your kernel today??
It seems that if the FBI targets you these days it should be taken as a compliment. The list includes encryption advacates, fringe artists and Steve Jackson. So of a "you know you've made it big when..." thing.
Oh no my freaking ears!!!!!
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
Tailgunner Joe wasn't a liberal. Not at all. He also wasn't a lot of the things that people try to paint him as. But needless to say all kinds of history has been written to explain that not only was Josef Stalin a really kindly old 'gent, (the kind of man you'd want to dress up as Santa Claus so your children can sit on his lap), and not only was Communism never a threat to freedom, but also, Joe McCarthy was an evile evile man.
Yep. Evile. Bad.
This doesn't hold water. People will do just about anything to avoid being burned to death. Jump out of 30 story windows and fall to their deaths, for example. If the BATF corralled people so that if they tried to escape the fire, they would be shot, that wouldn't stop them from trying to escape the fire. And in the second place, I saw footage of the compound while it was on fire. There were plenty of windows that weren't blocked by debris.
The BATF wouldn't have been able to get away with killing them if their religion had been mainstream.
Actually, there'd have been a lot less controversy surrounding this incident if they'd all been mainstream Christians.
--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
t QPv8r1SVhyid6c7E D Sq7J029x+cRLgrTb L VD1vuXRzy9M8ROMD C bpC7BYOpQTRMCNcE W MurkHeg2O2nvxpIi v 2YHDz+nde8UwR2Fs p wl4t5H1hUXdaz3fS W ntlc5txkYvu8LeBX
Version: GnuPG v1.0.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with Geheimnis
hQEOA9DF0EXsPZ32EAQAgZrCGcItAhToQOWhcl8Kb+3dH+7
AHLp/RhNQYiVWz16ArPiAdcrlklVSPVzckcJvlLq3XygFAe
7SaLG53CXhpIYSfz6MsKRzWfm8rr1c32haMNWSVJ6zR9NNJ
/0Vdd88Lr53tE5ZLQBggBl64fXRRTXGvwar8gAtUSj3DlCe
YCwbO6yj75atP7e1l33L7C1tX6/23SKPH5Glzhqy1YEP19U
k4BZfdpHGYZUOI32BxSe15OFKAJwZGjZbQYYpSEh0+UWyXs
XluEo9kLV+LzfgogD9M1pxoRxkqTg9AnX7AaHoTtC/j69dq
ge0J8beu7JEdkas3nnVjqHXWW4aNmA3tL7PDWv3l9i8fFTI
EEpGHiGLr7epf493tB0=
=FIrG
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----
--fatboy
Damn. Any 2-cent spellcheck could have cleaned that article up before they got swamped. Hope they learn their lesson...
And it's not in any way inconsistent to be an advocate of reducing the size of the federal government and at the same time an advocate of protecting the civil liberties of individuals. In fact, this position is very defensible, as those very civil liberties tend to be more commonly disregarded by the US government than by any other organization. [emphasis added]
Uh.. seen China lately? Singapore?
Okay, so they don't have a presence in the U.S., how about RealPlayer, Comet-Cursor (or whatever that silly place is named..), the KKK, the Hell's Angels, Intel, or the Tobacco Industries?
That not enough? Perhaps the Unabomber? The Columbine Kiddies?
There's people out there who'd stomp on your rights a heck of a lot more than the US government if the US government wasn't around.
Kwil
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
well, you would have got First Post if you wrote a shorter post, not that I'm complaining about the length of your post or the content, but as a general rule you don't see any post over a few words as FP, cause some FOOL posts something like "F1R5t P05T" with the text as "MuHaHa... Fools"
Actually, most of the problems with encryption stem from our trade agreements with the US. If not for NAFTA, there would be no restrictions period. Because of it, there are commercial restrictions, but things like OpenBSD can be exported without issue.
----------------- "I have a bone to pick, and a few to break." - Refused -------------------
The premise of civil disobedience is not that you can violate laws, moon the judge, and then declare yourself inncocent and scott-free.
You must accept that there will be reprocussions often quite painful, if not deadly for your actions, fair or unfair, legal or illegal. You expect, though, that your plight will draw the attention of others who agree that the laws are unjust and will put forth the effort to change them.
Of course, once you commit to violating laws, it becomes your obligation to fight for whatever rights that you believe are held in question. But don't expect the establishment to make it easy for you. That's not their job. Their job is to stay in power.
_______________________________
>I appear to have a much better understanding of constitutional law than you.
I guess that's really the subject of our debate isn't it.
>in connection with your service as part of the militia.
Exactly! But just because I'm a militia member in reserve doesn't mean that I can't keep my weapon, as the constitution allows.
>maintained by a "State"
Slow down, pardner! It doesn't say ANYTHING about states being involved - just that militias are necessary for states to be free!
>Since you're so good at quoting documents,
Sorry, I don't have this one on top of my desk!
> I did not say that the 2nd Amendment has been misunderstood for 300 years
But Americans have ALWAYS owned guns, and it would have to be a misundetstanding if they really weren't allowed to!
> So, the Supreme Court at least has not misunderstood the constitution
The "Supreme" Court vs. 80 million gun owners about Constitutional law? I go with the 80 million side.
> I don't suppose lying to support a cause
What are you implying?
No comment at this time
Actually, the US is literally founded on the principle that if laws suck, you overthrow the government in an armed revolution and install your own regime.
Do we need IETF for IPv6 to be developed? No. A group of hackers can do it better and quicker. How about creating a new protocol for the Internet very much like IPv4/IPv6 but with very very very strong public-key encryption and no point of control(DNS)? Finish touch: license it under GPL and you have a killer-protocol.
Who moderated this guy up to a 2? All he's doing is insulting! Revoke moderator priveleges!!! Boo-hiss! Fsking karma whore! Damn hot grits!
He wanted the CURRENT slashdot source. v.pre0.3 is badly out of date. Read this thread.
I find the stories of the FBI overstepping its legal and Constitutional bounds to be extremely plausible.
Earlier this year I was threatened, harassed, had my residence and belongings illegally searched (no warrant), and generally became a target for the Feds. Apparently they somehow got the idea that I was some type of subversive by associating with people who publicly criticize the various Federal goon squads. My personal life was far less interesting than they envisioned, not that they had any business checking on it in the first place. They seemed to figure that if they pushed me hard enough I would crack and expose some hypothetical evidence of evil intent. I had to sic a pack of attack lawyers on them before they stopped. A very unpleasant and stressful experience.
All I got out of it was a severe distrust of the government, a distrust that the government well-deserves. If nothing else, it made me *want* to become a subversive (and a libertarian, although that may be the same thing depending on who you ask).
He may still find a loophole in 'adhering.' Can someone with an OED (I seem to have left mine in the pocket of my other coat ;) check up on the meaning of adhere during the 18th century?
If it means that he is deliberately trying to help enemies that's quite different than helping them as a side effect (e.g. attacking Iraq probably helped Iran but that wasn't the intent, just a secondary result)
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
We need a show that shows what a bunch of a-holes the FBI really is. Enough X-Files. But come on, the country is run by a president who can't keep his member to himself. We should get him a top secret tattoo. Then the FBI could run around put it back in his pants for him.
I could "advocate" the distribution of pgp to say Iran on a web page under an alias with a dummy account and easily get away with it. Anyone can do anything as long as they do not make themselves easily avaible to the law.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
i$ = 1;
i$++;
print i$;
2
Actually, no. Their job is to try to make the system work and to carry out the duties and responsibilities required to maintain the system and adapt the system to a changing environment. The fact that many people in positions of "power" (which should be "responsibility") value this position of "being in power" more than they value the results of the work they are supposed to be doing indicates they are not properly suited to the work. The fact that many of them place more effort into retaining this "power" than doing their work is abuse of the position.
I'm picking nits, but sometimes this seems like a war of beliefs, and an unquestioning acceptance of a damaged status quo does not help to change it.
Foo!
But this was out on the IETF raven list a couple of weeks ago. ZDTV did go into some more detail, but William Allen Simpson first posted about it on November 18th, and followed up on November 19th.
Do you know what tear gas decomposes into under extreme heat? Cyanide. You can't very well jump out of a building if your bones are broken from convulsions. I'm sure some people DID try to jump, and were impailed on debris.
> they would be shot, that wouldn't stop them from trying to escape the fire
That's my point - they WERE shot.
>There were plenty of windows that weren't blocked by debris.
Then why didn't survivors come out of these windows? Was the fire burning at that end of the building? Were there BATF with guns there? Tanks?
>preventing people from escaping
I'll rephrase this - preventing people from escaping ALIVE. There were almost no survivors except for the people that left before the fire.
No comment at this time
Hmm... land of the free indeed..... -Mind
Actually I think I will. My life has taken a rather bad turn for the worse lately. A creative method of making the government kill me could just be about the best form of civil disobedience/suicide that could be done. That would also shame the government and make them look quite bad. Of course slashdot is also alias worthy for various reasons.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
Consider the source, Simpson himself.
He likes publicity and recognition, a trait that had not endeared him to his peers.
He made an appeal to the IETF's board a few months ago (a very time consuming process for all those involved). One of his complaints was that he did not get credit for his contributions.
I would give him very low credibility. I am suprised that anyone believes his story about being investigated by the FBI. Abduction by aliens who can break triple DES in microseconds is next.
i was just thinking of something small here.. I would like the slashdot code to be rewrittened so that what now says 'parent' in the postings would rather say 'patent'
The annoying thing about cluelessness in government and government agencies is that, theoretically, these people are working for us, as our servents (civil), and we're paying their wages for doing the tedious admin that we want done but that would bore us silly if we had to do it ourselves.
Alas, in reality they do whatever they want, without any democratic direction whatsoever, as Slashdot and a myriad of other news outlets are highlighting almost daily. One has to ask, metaphorically, is their Berlin Wall going to come crashing down around them now that the citizenry has instant global communications and hence the means to show their actions for what they really are?
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Slow down, pardner! It doesn't say ANYTHING about states being involved - just that militias are necessary for states to be free!
I disagree, which is irrelevant. The Supreme Court disagrees, which is not. "Every male 18 or over" does not constitute "A well regulated militia" in either case.
* I did not say that the 2nd Amendment has been misunderstood for 300 years
But Americans have ALWAYS owned guns, and it would have to be a misundetstanding if they really weren't allowed to!
Irrelevant. The question was whether the US Constitution supports that right. Whether or how long Americans have owned guns has absolutely nothing to do with it.
* So, the Supreme Court at least has not misunderstood the constitution
The "Supreme" Court vs. 80 million gun owners about Constitutional law? I go with the 80 million side.
Hehe! True, but again irrelevant. Under US law, it's the Supreme Court's job to interpret the Constitution. It's the opinion of those 9 people who matter vis a vis Constitutional law, and nobody else's.
* I don't suppose lying to support a cause
What are you implying?
That it's a waste of time to run around saying the 2nd Amendment guarentees you the right to own a gun when it doesn't, rather than concentrating on providing good arguments why you should. And there are plenty of good arguments, so why waste time with the bad ones?
Again, I'm not arguing that people shouldn't have the right to bear arms. I own a gun myself and think its a good idea for a certain portion of the population to do so. I'm just saying "The Constitutional Right" argument is bad, and really ought to be avoided if you're actually serious about advocating gun-rights. It's a pointless distraction that makes you look bad when it's rather easily refuted.
--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
>Namely, get a gun and arm yourself.
Absolutely! The second amendment isn't about duck hunting. It's about protecting your self from evil governments.
If you want your children to be as free as we are, get a gun and join the NRA. Download PGP and force the NSA's Echelon servers to work harder.
Above all, protect other people's rights - even if you don't agree with them. "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death to make sure you have the right to say it."
No comment at this time
FBI should spend its time investigating RICHARD STALLMAN. That guy is a dangerous COMMUNIST. And the GPL his tool for world domination.
FIRST POST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I didn't know that advocating that laws be changed could possibly fall under the charge of Treason. The United States is founded on the principle that if laws suck, you change them through the democratic process. If the FBI can investigate people for holding different beliefs than those in office, that circumvents the whole idea of freedom of thought and speech. This proves that the FBI is indeed too powerful and needs to be checked. I'll now go retire to my room where I'll await Hoover's G-men who are no doubt on their way to interrogate and shoot me.
Nothing is done in the interest of National security; it's done in the interests of government security
I can agree that many (most?) things government does are done to serve its own interests, but actions are also caried out to convince people of the legitimacy or necesity of the institution's existence. In these Cryptography stories the U.S. government says that they are doing this to protect us, therefore they are needed, they have a vitaly important purpose. An interesting article advocating this position is availible here. A quote:
"Social contract is currently fashionable, in the ebb and flow of on-line political debate. This is a contract I never signed, that I've never seen, that has no terms, that is binding upon me but not upon the other party, that can be dispensed with at will by the government but must submitted to by me upon pain of incarceration, whose terms may change on-the-fly or even retroactively, from which there is no escape clause, which is binding in perpetuity, which binds my ancestors and descendants, which requires fealty but guarantees no consideration.
And it's bullshit on its face."
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
That the FBI considers disagreeing with crypto laws a potential crime is not the most disturbing thing. . . it's that crypto laws seem to make sure that they could find out what he's saying to anyone even if he encrypts it. . .
That's why Ireland isn't part of Britain anymore...
>Since you're so good at quoting documents, could you quote this one or at least provide a reference?
Merry Christmas, parner! It's Title 10, Section 311 of the U.S. Code. I had it bookmarked. And it's actually 17 years old. My bad.
Read the Federalist Papers, and find out what the founding fathers, MY ANCESTORS, thought about guns.
Also, the supreme court has ruled on only 4 cases relating to the 2nd amend. this century. See US vs. Miller, 1939, a supreme court case which ruled in favor of the right of everyone to keep and bear arms.
No comment at this time
I think this proves it, if the one of the shady wings of the United states Government (such as the FBI in this case) comes accross a website they want stoped, they inform slashdot. Why bother with strong hand tacktics to have a site shut down when you can just leak the fact you don't like it to /. and kill it instantly.
Anyone ever thought about the uses of the slash dot effect for cyber-warefare?
James Sharman (www.exaflop.org)
There is a poster outside of the Physics department here at my college. It is an illustration depicting a "hippie" and a "anti big government" advocate. They are walking along together, ready to go to an "anti government" rally when the hippie looks at the anti-government advocate and says " I'll meet you at the rally after I go and pick up my food stamps and my free application for subsidized housing..." The anti-government advocate looks at the hippie and says "Yeah, I'll meet you there after I pick up my free application for federally subsidized student aid and my federal grant money to go to school..." And then the cartoon ends with them at the anti-government rally. /. are exactly like the two characters depicted in the cartoon. The government is good enough to provide everything you will ever need to live, including the protected ability to post on /., and to criticize it's every move, even to the point of depicted how are lives would be better without it. And then you go and hide behind the government and feed off of it like everyone else. If laws were broken, then crimes were committed, and punishment is what should ensue.
The posters on
So, is this guy guilty of treason? I don't know, but somebody smarter than all of us obviously does. So, instead of saying that the FBI is "too powerful" and that "it should be checked or disbanded," maybe somebody should find out all of the facts. The FBI is the last thing on anybody's list of enemies. The number of murders that they put away each year alone based on DNA evidence is staggering. And when people do things to purposely get the FBI and DOJ in trouble is funny all in its own. Think about it.
Merry Christmas, parner! It's Title 10, Section 311 of the U.S. Code. I had it bookmarked. And it's actually 17 years old. My bad.
Thanks! I'll check it out.
Read the Federalist Papers, and find out what the founding fathers, MY ANCESTORS, thought about guns.
Not actually as relevant to Constitutional law as a lot of people think (what's more relevant is what the Supreme Court justices think of the Federalist Papers), but a worthy read nonetheless.
Also, the supreme court has ruled on only 4 cases relating to the 2nd amend. this century. See US vs. Miller, 1939, a supreme court case which ruled in favor of the right of everyone to keep and bear arms.
Or the inability for the law to deny that right for whatever reason the law under question did. It doesn't mean much without considering the specifics. The Supreme Court has upheld the ability for laws to restrict or deny the right to bear arms for some reasons. The only thing that really prevents a general ban on guns is legislative effort. Relying on the Supreme Court to uphold this right is foolhardy.
--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
I'll name one: the Branch Davidians. They were Christians brutally murdered by the strong arm of our government, the BATF. They may not be "real" Christians, but they had every right to practice their religion in peace.
You may not recognize their name. They were killed in Waco, Texas.
No comment at this time
You're both slightly wrong. When you go to get a government job, who do you think investigates your background? The FBI, of course! And when the FBI looks for 'Neko, Osu' in that big ol' Oracle database of theirs, what do you think comes up? 'Subject under investigation for subversion and/or collabaration in an act of treason'. Then FBI Field Agent John Smith slaps the application with his big red 'REJECTED' stamp, and you don't get to swab the floors in the Library of Congress for minimum wage. You see, the background check criteria include probability of a future criminal offense too.
Ask yourself this: If you were Field Agent Smith, would you pass someone with such a background, when many other qualified applicants exist with squeaky records? Would you want to take shit if said individual screwed up? I wouldn't, and neither would you. Hence we come to the conclusion that 'Investigation == No Government job', even if it isn't exactly legally mandated so.
On a side note, the FBI do take your driving record into consideration, perhaps too weightedly so. An associate of mine almost failed the background check over his bad record (ran two stop signs in one year) when his company bid on a crap programming job for one of the cabinet-level agencies. (Dept of Energy, I think..)
.sig: Now legally binding!
He means the various Christian groups with strong political views. Specifically, certain groups such as the Christian Coalition and the Heritage Foundation which both promote their view of Christianity... and have criticized the administration in the past.
Congressmen are permitted to *refer* a non-profit group to the IRS which is to put them near the head of a queue for examining whether they should lose their tax-exempt status for political activity, which tends to be a no-no... This referral does *not* guarantee an audit... just a check.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
There are some laws that are unjust. And because these laws are unjust, generally speaking, it's considered morally correct to intentionally violate them. This is called civil disobedience.
But, just because you may be morally justified in breaking a law, this does not mean you are exempt from the legal consequences of breaking the law.
Voting is certainly one way to try and change a law, but it's not always effective when people are blind to the injustice of that law. At that point, your only choice to change the law is to break it so as to call attention to the injustice of the law. By doing so, though, you risk the consequences from breaking that law.
How does this relate to encryption? It seems obvious to me that encryption issues are more or less ignored by the general public. I've never read anything in the newspaper about encryption. I've never heard anything on NPR about it. Once, I saw something on C-SPAN on the issue. This issue has been hotly debated in tech circles for decades! Yet the general public is generally ignorant, and apathetic of the issue. There simply isn't enough general knowledge of the issue for lobbying and voting to be an effective tool for change. The only tool for change left may very well be civil disobedience. Which brings on the potential that you'll get investigated/harrassed/whatever by those who wish to continue this law.
When push comes to shove, who's willing to risk their careers, freedoms, and lifestyle for encryption? My honest answer is that I'd like to but I'll never know how I'll deal with federal persecution until it's happening to me. In the meantime, I'll continue to write my congressional representatives, and continue to use and advocate strong encryption, and continue to cast my vote appropriately. And if I export strong encryption, I will not feel remorse... until they catch me.
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
It's not really a case of leverage in the Council.
It's that some adamantly anti-choice politicos over here oppose the pro-death folks in the UN funding family planning programs that even mention abortion... and hence try to blackmail the President and friends into adding stipulations to their UN funding bills.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
You have the right to bear arms in connection with your service as part of the militia.
Wrong. It says it the right shall not be infringed. Period. It doesn't list exceptions.
The part in front about the militia is an explanation of why they were acknowledging a right to own and keep guns.
But all this is beside the point, really. The bottom line is: if you try to take my guns away, I will kill you with them. You and yours can, and will, send more men with guns after me (hey, why is it okay for your hired goons to have them and not me????) and they will kill me... and then another guy/gal like me will kill some of them... and so on, and so on, etc... 'til we have a nice little civil war. Isn't it best to leave me alone? After all, right now my gun is no danger to you.
If you think differently than the FBI and the American New World Order of the Post-Cold War Era then yes, you are an enemy of the States and will be pursued as such.
Do not be shocked by what you read, the Government guns down its young civilians in cold blood. Legal measures pale in comparison.
-=tonyt=-
How about being murdered for being a Christian? How about having yourself and your family burned alive in a van, like it happend in India?
How about being sold into slavery, starving in Sudan.
Oh and by the way, on a second point... Not all Christians are white.
That's an interesting point. It makes me wonder though whether there isn't already a group making that territory its own, ie. effectively presenting the view of the Founding Fathers on relevant issues in the US today. Advocacy rules OK of course, but is there a group with enough pedigree to make government take notice? It seems not, given what we see reported so frequently.
Leaving aside reincarnation for the moment (it's probably been patented anyway), serious representation of FF views could probably be achieved by proxy if a sufficient number of learned scholars put their minds, time and money to it. However, in practice this would mean pitting oneself against the establishment, and what learned scholar is going to do that?
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
>I don't think you know how easy you got it!
I don't think you have a clue about the persecution and hatred Christians and other members of religions face today in the world.
Depends on what the results of the investigation were. If the Bureau's best did their darndest to dig up any dirt on the subject and only succeeded in proving the person's a living saint who never even smarts off to his mother, yeah, I'd pass it.
--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
What happens when 'The Big Bad Evil Government(tm)' or 'The Big Bad Evil Corporation(tm)' comes knocking on my door to search it warrentless, or decides my property shoudn't be mine at all, but theirs? If its just me getting walked on, not much. They wrong me, I sue, I might even win. They decide to do this to a whole lot of people, what then?
We shoot them.
Dead, preferably.
The government has the responsibility to use its granted powers to serve the will of the people. We, the people, have the responsibility to make sure the government serves us. Owning a firearm and learning to use it properly is the only real way we can have this right.
'The Big Bad Evil Government' is a registered trademark of the People's Republic of China. 'The Big Bad Evil Corporation is a trademark of Microsoft.
.sig: Now legally binding!
As pointed out by several knowledgeable people, the FBI surveillance happened 6 1/2 years ago and did not continue so in some weird sense the system worked. However, it should be noted that the FBI has no reason to do such a thing now. Time has passed, they should have learned by now. There is not much we can do about the FBI(except keep our eyes open) but there is something very obvious we can do about organizations bent on capitalizing on this intrusion of privacy and protection of our data. I suggest that anyone who has the power to influence the purchase of products made by FORE systems choose another vendor. Boycott FORE, I know I will!!!
It may be legal, but its not safe. It can cost you promotions and friends around here.
I don't know the whole story, but why are we all talking about it in Nov 1999? Is it because he just recently had his FOIA request fulfilled? A lot of good being able to check up on your government does when it takes six years for them to answer. In 1933, Hitler was a punk in Munich. In 1939 (six years later), he was invading Poland.
Don't be so critical. NTSecurity is a reputable site, and I have no doubt that it activly worries about the validity of content presented. In a side note, here's an alternate theory. The fellow in question is writing from Windows with a copy of Word. The spell checker in Word, as we all know, sucks badly 'out-of-the-box'.(although it has improved considerably) I can't check to be certain, (I don't own a Windows box, much less one with Office installed on it) but I don't think 'censored' is in the standard dictionary. How many times has Word 'autocorrect'ed words on you?
.sig: Now legally binding!
All good advice, but you forgot the first and best step to ensuring your rights and freedoms. Namely, get a gun and arm yourself.
Idiot. That's nothing more than a sure method of removing yourself from the gene pool. Or do you really imagine that you could shoot at government officials and they'd just let you off "Oh, sorry sir, we didn't realise you had a gun, that's all right then".
This is a Western-style democracy, not a Western-style gunfight, dickbrain.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
(Am I a good boy or what?)
Seastead this.
"403.2 Forbidden - read access forbidden" Have the Secret Police got a court order already?
You are correct that there are no exceptions. You're just wrong about what right it guarenteed to not be infringed, no exceptions. Specifically, it's the right to bear arms as part of the maintenance of a well regulated militia.
The part in front about the militia is an explanation of why they were acknowledging a right to own and keep guns.
Actually, the US Constitution is notoriously short on explanations of "why" for anything in it. It's got the "whats" but not the "whys". If you want to know the "why" for anything, you need to read the Federalist Papers.
The explanation would not be there at all, except to clarify exactly what right is being guarenteed.
But all this is beside the point, really. The bottom line is: if you try to take my guns away, I will kill you with them. You and yours can, and will, send more men with guns after me (hey, why is it okay for your hired goons to have them and not me????) and they will kill me... and then another guy/gal like me will kill some of them... and so on, and so on, etc... 'til we have a nice little civil war. Isn't it best to leave me alone? After all, right now my gun is no danger to you.
It is, unfortunately, very much not beside the point. Telling people the Constitution guarentees their right to bear arms makes them complacent. They don't think they need to worry about congressional action, because the Constitution will protect them. I got news for you, it won't. And rather than relying on shooting people to keep your guns, isn't better to rely on staying politicially active and outspoken on good reasons why you should be allowed to keep them, rather than questionable arguments about the Constitution? People who argue along the lines you do are actually helping the gun-control advocates with your "It's my constitutional right, and if you don't like it I'll kill you" arguments.
--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
That statement is, of course, blatantly false. The Branch Davidians killed themselves. If a BATF simply wanted to kill them, they could have simply opened fire on them on when they first got there. There was a long, drawn-out stand-off precisely because the BATF wanted them alive!
They may not be "real" Christians, but they had every right to practice their religion in peace.
Which no one ever disputed, certainly not the BATF, and their religious beliefs had absolutely nothing at all to do with why the BATF was there attempting to arrest them.
--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
I'm voting Libertarian from now on.
:)
I'm with you. I used to be a staunch Republician, but they don't seem to care about our rights any more than the Dems do. I look at it this way:
A vote for a Republician is a vote for the second amendment.
A vote for a Democrat is a vote for the first amendment.
A vote for a Libertarian is a vote for all the amendments
Finkployd
FBI-People are in the IETF-WGs
come think of it: the standards are being made with the participation (but not stated and made public) of some anti-democratic government agency. The IETF is supposed to be an international standards body, but gets votes from hidden FBI-Advocates, and everything said in those meetings gets reported to the FBI.
Just make a bad joke (in addition to the legitimate discussions) about exporting encryption... and boom you get prosecuted for treason. bad luck.
Reality check: Getting a traffic ticket is a part of your criminal record. Getting investigated for anything (even murder or treason) is not a part of your criminal record. He is not barred from getting a job in a government office as janitor or anything else for having been under investigation. If the job involves anything serious, he'd be investigated anyways, since everyone who's seriously considered for such a position gets investigated! We never hire anyone for those kinds of positions unless they've been investigated! Now, it may be he would be denied even if not prosecuted based on what the investigation was for and what it turned up, but in that case we wouldn't have gotten the job to begin with.
--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Erm ... in 1933, Hitler was President. In 1923, Hitler was a punk in Munich. But your point still stands.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
True, but not the FBI's fault or problem. In an ideal world, we'd only investigate guilty people, but in the real world, we don't know who's guilty until we investigate. Either we have to investigate innocent people or we can never investigate anyone...
--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
--Historical Review of Pennsylvania.
more good quotes at http://library.advanced.org/22254/frquot.htm
or if starting yor own country is too much work, you could join a new 'cyber nation' already in progress CY: http://www.juga.com/.
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. -- A.E.
Someone send 'em anti-american nazis at the FBI a more appropriate uniform - A Geramn Gestapo uniform complete with the swastica they salute every day.
Stupid punks running the gov't... I think I know who should be investigated for treason, and it aint Mr. Simpson.
here (at least in part)
Then you are a better person than most and probably a better person than I. Its situations like this one that make me glad I didn't put that Criminal Justice degree to use. ;-)
.sig: Now legally binding!
Those of you expecting 'the four o'clock knock' from Hoover's G.. Men may be in for a supprise! I used to think that 'Hoover sucks' was PR for the vacuum cleaner company - Oh nieve youth! They might be annoyed if the J. Edgar Hoover Building was renamed "The Closet" or "Tea Rooms". Just an idea :-))
National security takes a back seat to our nation's constitution. If it does not, we have nothing to protect but a pile of dirt.
>The Branch Davidians killed themselves.
riiiiight... The BATF filling the building with a flammable gas and sending in incindiary grenades had nothing to do with the ENORMOUS fire which erupted, right. The one which looked like a burning oil well? House fires do not burn with plumes of black smoke.
>they could have simply opened fire on them on when they first got there.
And the fact that the BATF waited a couple weeks to do so means what? Lon Horiuchi, the BATF sniper who shot a woman and a 14 year old boy at the Ruby Ridge standoff was at Waco. Curiously, about 50 spent shell casings were found in the building where he was observing (read: sniping) the Waco standoff.
And curiously, in pictures of the standoff before the deadly arson, the BATF people are standing in front of the building blazing away and obviously not being shot at. The roof of the building was riddled with bullets which could only have come from helicopters. No wonder the BATF torched the building - there was far too much evidence tat there had been a massacre.
I urge you to go to this web site and learn the truth: http://www.mnsinc.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/
The last time I checked, we still are at war with North Korea. Theoretically, advocating any aid of that nature could constitute a crime. Good luck finding a jury to convict him though.
--
Gleepy the Hen. More intelligent than the average hen.
What? This loyal subject of His Majesty the King has been charged with *treason*? Lord Simpson himself, Earl of the West Coast Dominions? Has he been trading with the enemy? Or has he furthered the cause of overthrowing the eternal dynasty of the heavenly rulers over the twelve skies?
The traitor!
That's a job for engineers. Mathematicians and true scientists should avoid such considerations at all costs. To even consider whether something you're working on is applicable or not is to consider yourself more clever than all the humans who will live after you, since you're essentially second-guessing whether they'll find an application for it or not. Believe me, I don't care who you are, you aren't qualified to make that judgement...
--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
>get a gun and arm yourself.
Let me tell you a little story about the toy that the government calls a "tank". They have thousands of 'em. You have none. These so-called "tanks" have steel armor that your gun can't penetrate, a cannon capable of leveling buildings with a single shot, and room inside for 4 or 5 jack-booted minions of the oppressor. Your bullets will make a nice musical tinkle riccocheting off the hull of the tank, until they decide that a pathetic, lone man with a gun isn't even worth opening the hatch to mow you down with the machinegun, and run you over.
Viva la resistance!
0 1 - just my two bits
The FBI has always found it easier to simply murder smeone than to take them to trial....Ruby Ridge is a prime example. Buy lots of guns and get ready for the day. It's coming. Fuck the FBI.
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Actually, it's about state governments protecting themselves from the federal government. Whether they're good or evil doesn't enter into it, nor does it have anything to do with the rights of private citizens, although those who know little about the actual constitution seem to frequently think so.
--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Um, I was about to suggest you do the same thing when I read this. I find it hard to believe you've ever read them and can actually claim what you do about the 2nd ammendment. First of all, "State" does not refer to any of the individual states that make up the union. "State" in its most proper sense refers to a nation as a whole. In this light, to say that the State is responsible for regulating the militia makes no sense. The "security of the free State" is, in fact, the security of the freedoms of the nation as a whole. If you read the Federalist Papers, and other writings by the Founders, you quickly realize that the greatest threat they envisioned to the security of this free State was not any outside power, but the government itself. If it was their intent to have the militia regulated by the State, then they would be granting it control over the body that was intended to keep it in check. This would require a monumental feat of stupidity. The 2nd ammendment does, indeed, grant the citizens of the US the right to bear arms. You mentioned in another post that the Supreme Court is responsible for interpreting the Constitution. This is correct, but misleading. For all legal purposes, the Supreme Court is responsible for deciding the stance of the Constitution, but that does not mean that their interpretation is the correct one. If the Supreme Court decided tomorrow that "Hey, we were wrong all along... there really isn't anything about the freedom of speech in the Constitution, then we would be legally bound by that interpretation. But they'd still be wrong. Even if the Supreme Court decided that the 2nd ammendment didn't protect the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms(which, last I checked, they hadn't), they wouldn't be right. We'd be legally bound by their decision, but to say they were right in their interpretation would be to ignore two centuries of contrary interpretations. Those who founded this country clearly believed this right was protected by the 2nd ammendment, and, since they did sort of write the thing, I'm inclined to believe them, regardless of what the Supreme Court says tomorrow.
Roses are red, violets are blue. I'm a schitzophrenic, and so am I.
> Which no one ever disputed, certainly not the BATF...
I'm afraid that this assertion is incorrect. Part of the problem was the BATF's failure to understand what David Koresh was thinking and expecting. During the negotiation, when he talked about how his religion, the BATF negotiators dismissed what he had to say as "bible babble."
>why the BATF was there attempting to arrest them.
Can you give me a reason for them to be arrested?
I'll repost this guy's comment because it's score is a zero, and people deserve to see it:
>The Branch Davidians killed themselves.
riiiiight... The BATF filling the building with a flammable gas and sending in incindiary grenades had nothing todo with the ENORMOUS fire which erupted, right. The one which looked like a burning oil well? House fires do not burn with plumes of black smoke.
>they could have simply opened fire on them on when they first got there.
And the fact that the BATF waited a couple weeks to do so means what? Lon Horiuchi, the BATF sniper who shot a woman and a 14 year old boy at the Ruby Ridge standoff was at Waco. Curiously, about 50 spent shell casings were found in the building where he was observing (read: sniping) the Waco standoff. And curiously, in pictures of the standoff before the deadly arson, the BATF people are standing in front of the building blazing away and obviously not being shot at. The roof of the building was riddled with bullets which could only have come from helicopters. No wonder the BATF torched the building - there was far too much evidence tat there had been a massacre.
I urge you to go to this web site and learn the truth: http://www.mnsinc.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/
No comment at this time
Actually, even this overstates the issue. The FBI hasn't accused him of anything. All it has done is do a little investigating, which is what we pay them for, after all. We may not like what they're investigating, and it's probably a waste of resources, but we don't help things by inflating this into something its not.
--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Jump! Jump! Jump!
Don't think that modern armies are necessarily invulnerable to guerilla warfare.
Gee. Last time I checked, the U.S. Constitution was very specific about what constitutes treason:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
This is just another attempt by the FBI to terrorize an innocent citizen. They have no legal standing to accuse him of treason, and they know it.
But then, terrorizing citizens is what the FBI is there for, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
The story is, as far as I can tell, consistent with what I have seen claimed in email by Bill Simpson himself.
You can't get much closer to the horse's mouth than that.
I mean, symbolically, let all the american members (probably most of it!) resign and name foreigners instead who will hold meeting somewhere else. Just so that 'they' get the message.
--
Export Controls are not a law - it's a government regulation. Very different, as laws are public, while the guidelines for export control are partly secret.
WE WANT THE HALFWAY CURRENT CODE!!!
PUT UP OR SHUT UP!
IIRC, Phil Zimmermann was "under investigation" for some time, after the release of PGP; after they finally decided he wasn't going to be intimidated, and the bad publicity, like any publicity, was just spreading PGP faster, they dropped the whole thing.....
--
-=DaveHowe=-
Government malfeasance is always reported in the past tense.
--
Advertisers: If you attach cookies to your banner ads,
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
However, I think that this has the potential to incite online "rioting". It seems alittle premature to say this, but the government hasn't convicted anyone of treason in a long time... if they did it now it'll surely make headlines and piss off a helluva lot of influential people in the technology sector. This really is 1984 - they're telling us how we will, or will not, do our own math? I'd take issue with this on constitutional grounds - math might qualify as a belief. Number *theory*.. which essentially boils down to belief. However, IANAL, and I don't want to explore that issue just yet.
Keep your eyes on this one folks... it could be almost as big as the MS v. DOJ trial if the cards fall right.
That would also shame the government and make them look quite bad.
Ummm. Hello? I think that the behavior of the current administration (including the activities this thread are based on) clearly demonstrate that the US government has no shame.
Folks, wake up. Even Nixon was pardoned by Executive Order for anything he *might* have done. No US president will ever allow a predecessor to be convicted of anything that's likely to result in incarceration. Even when Clinton lied under oath, the Federal Judge he appointed would only fine him. I've actually put people in jail for contempt in civil proceedings in Canada. One of our MPs (the equivalent of one of your Representatives), a former RCMP officer was recently convicted of sexual assault for a crime that occurred 30 years ago. Thanks, but that's why I live in Canada.
Tell this to some folks in Afghanistan... (The Talibahn(sp?)... You know those guys who took the country back from the Soviet Union?? Back when the Soviet Union was one of the two biggest boys on the block...)
If you voted for Nader, THIS IS ALL YOUR FAULT!!
They are heavily censored, but reading between the lines and into the black bits it sounds like the story goes something like this.
At an IETF meeting in Mexico in 1992 the PPP sig discussed encryption. Simpson was present and said something which made someone else at the meeting suspect he was selling encryption products to a foreign power, in violation of ITAR. They informed the FBI, who investigated and found no evidence to support such an allegation. The investigation was then dropped.
Bear in mind this was back in 92-93. The Internet was an obscure academic toy in those days, and cyber-liberties mostly centered around hacker issues (check out The Hacker Crackdown by Bruce Sterling). I don't think this is a big thing.
Paul.
You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.
Are you American? From what I read of your posts, you have a shaky grasp of American current events and our constitution.
It so happens that I have an "actual" copy of the constitution before me. The second amendment reads:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
According to the United States Code, the militia consists of all able-bodied males over 18. This coincides nicely with "private citizens." I think your argument that the 2nd amendment has been misunderstood for 300 years is rather baseless.
Take your facist ideas back to Japan, please. Where the Shoguns prohibited people from owning weapons.
No comment at this time
this is a small example of the harrassment you say Christians never get.
Uh. Hello? The original post suggested Christians were being harressed by the US government/Clinton administration. I don't think anybody is going to deny that there are folks who feel a certain religion is silly, but hey, let's not pretend like Christians are never judgemental. But as for US GOVERNMENT harassment, please put forward examples? Otherwise you might as well try shutting up.
Wow. First post. Not that it matters to me. Maybe I'll be moderated period for once. ;P
Seriously, this doesn't surprise me. It wouldn't surprise me if I was under investigation for being a privacy advocate, critical of government policies against citizens, and a PGP user. I am for IPSec, I *use* a form of IPSec. I don't believe in the right of the gov't to blatantly ignore the constitution in the 'interests of national security.'
National security. You sure hear that term a lot, don't you? Now, I have to think. What do they really mean by national? Obviously not national, as national would mean not only the gov't, but every citizen and legal resident of the United States of America. Nothing is done in the interest of National security; it's done in the interests of government security. The government maintains it's power by asserting it's power over it's people. Sometimes fairly and justly - hate crimes, Roe vs. Wade, hate crime legislation. Other times, unjustly and basically illegally - anti-crypto, censorship, harassment. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that the FBI has repeatedly abused it's power. The same for the NSA. They both have multi-billion dollar 'black' budgets - budgets that do not have to be accounted for. They can spend the money from that budgeanything without having to account for a single penny , or state what it is spent on.
Don't think the government will stop there, though. It wouldn't surpriese me if this advocate became the next Kevin Mitnick. The next step, logically, is for the FBI to file secret evidence and lock him up in a federal prison, and deny him access to computers for the rest of his life. And don't doubt that the FBI will at the least try to. Why wouldn't they? It's his strongest voice. That's what he's scaring them with now.
Fight oppression. Fight back. Promote your own privacy. National security should mean NATIONAL security - not government security. Use PGP. Don't keep passwords written down. Refuse illegal search and seizure. Complain to the appropriate authorities about harassment. You have rights in this country, unless you're too damn scared to fight for them. I don't know about any of you, but I plan to fight for my rights if I have to, and I'll let no person, company, or government take away the rights that the Gods gave me at birth and that the United States Constitution garauntees me in writing and law.
--RISCy Business
your company here.
shelby != ford
The site is slashdotted, so I can't read the article, but I can't believe that merely challenging laws which might interfere with one's activities is grounds for treason. If I disagree with, say, the speed limit and lobby my representatives to get it removed, I'm challenging the law but I'd suggest that I'm not being treasonous. If that alone were grounds for treason, simply disagreeing with the government at _all_ could be treasonous. So much for freedom.
Having finally gotten to read the article, it looks like even the man under investigation can't find out any specifics. If the government can start investigating you for treason (which is punishable by death) on a whim, I think it's time to move elsewhere.
I'm afraid that this assertion is incorrect. Part of the problem was the BATF's failure to understand what David Koresh was thinking and expecting. During the negotiation, when he talked about how his religion, the BATF negotiators dismissed what he had to say as "bible babble."
How does this make my assertion incorrect? My assertion was that the BATF did not dispute their right to worship as they please. The fact that they didn't believe it doesn't mean they didn't think the Davidians had the right to.
As for the rest of your reply, we simply have a dispute over facts. It'll do neither of us any good to rehash different versions of what happened. Some people say the Davidians started the blaze, some say the BATF. We'll not find the truth by arguing about it here. I do wonder, though, if the BATF started it, and the Davidians were not in fact attempting to kill themselves, why didn't they flee? It went up quick, but not that quick. There was time for most of those people to get out if they wanted...
--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
No family planning => overpopulation
--
I hear more and more about how the fbi is patrolling the web. It is sad to say, but soon probably the web will become so restrictive that even places like Slashdot will no longer be able to exist...
Well, it seems to me that /. has been 'having a good time' by yanking my chain too many times over the past few days. Much like the boy who cried wolf, when the facts don't back up the assertions, people discredit those making the assertions. I personally am at the point where I don't take any of these stories at face value any more. /. has recently not been much better than the Weekly World News in terms of its veracity.
In this case we have a story claiming Mr. Simpson is under investigation by the FBI for treason. On some checking of additional sources (something any journalist is trained to do) we find that in fact he is not under investigation (the matter was closed with no action some 6 years ago) and in fact there was no allegation of treason at any time (only suspicion of illegal crypto export).
Now we have a bunch of voices screaming about abusive FBI behavior when it is hardly clear that such behavior existed at any time in this case.
To me this is a pretty sad state of affairs, and one not at all conducive towards actually identifying where real problems exist.
This issue, like so many others related to the internet or the exchange of information, is like a can of worms.
The authorities have noticed the can has been opened and are trying with all their might to stuff the worms back in the can and seal the lid.
Maybe what they should be doing is trying to educate those worms and help them to acheive better lives - then the authorities wouldn't have to worry about what the worms were saying to each other in unintelligible wormese (aka using strong encryption). By making the worms happier, everyone can live in a more secure environment, including the powers that be. After all, if you eliminate the fear of the things that might be hidden behind encryption you eliminate the fear of the the encryption itself.
I think it's a bit like being stuck in a lift with two other people who are speaking a different language - while you are there you might feel a bit insecure because they might be talking about you (chances are they're not, though!). As soon as you leave the lift, though, the insecurity goes away. Imagine how insecure the FBI must feel if they are looking at strongly encrypted, unintelligble information all the time! Time to get off the lift, guys!
Nicholas
The views expressed are my own and not those of my employer
If PPP had required encryption, it would not be legal to export PPP stacks from the US. This doesn't mean that they would be exported anyhow; rather, that they would be developed in a free country.
The new wave of government is here. Whatever the government can't stop, they try to go after the creators and those that support them. This is really serious.
The requested item could not be loaded by the proxy.
Proxy server's network connection was refused by the server: www.ntsecurity.net. The server may not be accepting connections or may be busy. Try connecting again later.
And since the original post was talking about the persecution of American Christians, I'm sure you'll enlighten us as to when India and the Sudan became part of the United States.
100% packet loss from where I'm sitting.
Anyone have a copy of the article?
The investigation is closed! Nothing to see here. Move along. +d
Unless he has actually levyed war agains the government, or conspired to, or given aid or comfort to a country with which we are at war, he's not being investigated for treason. In any case, it would have to be proven that integrating encryption in a software standard constitued an overt act of treason (as so defined). I think it's rather an uphill battle to show that conspiring to arrange it so that others might have to violate an export restriction to voluntarily participate in a standard rises to that level...
Espionage and antisocial acts are other issues.
There is NO innocent guy. Wake up.
Boy, with such... shall we say, strange... laws regarding cryptography in the US, I'm sure glad I don't live there. I certainly don't want to be investigated for "treason" when all I'm doing is trying to defend the right to privacy.
But getting back to the point... I think it's about time those high officials get some sense into their heads... Technology has left them way, way, behind in their traditional model of industry. We're entering into a "New Age", so to speak, and what with the Internet growing uncontrollably, with its own culture, etc., it's about time these people re-think how laws should apply to such things as cryptography. They're clearly so caught in their antiquated ideas they just can't handle the fact that strong cryptography is going to be a fact-of-life not far in the future of the Internet. Fighting against it simply shoots the US in its own foot.
I'm neither a politician nor an economist, but it seems to be that the US is declining... it used to be one of the pioneers in technology, but with the kind of attitude high officials have towards new developments in technology, like trying to shoe-horn the Internet into a traditional physical-goods based model of business, and strongly regulating access to strong cryptography, they may just shoot themselves in the foot so much they will simply fall behind (at least in the computer-related area) and not be able to catch up.
(Disclaimer: This is not meant to be flamebait or FBI-bait. I am not a politician, and I generally avoid politics.)
mikre he sophia he tou Mikrosophou.
>Don't be so critical. NTSecurity is a reputable site
I know, I read it often, even though I don't even use NT myself. However, good content is no excuse for this kind of misspelling. If you can't trust your word processors speling (:-)) check, proofread.
If something like this would happend, with all American representatives leaving the comitee, the US would boycot it's work. And in this day and age any global project that does not have US support will fail.
And if you think that the US wouldn't boycot something just to get more power check the United Nations, where the US refuses to pay it's membership fee so that they can get extra leverage within the UN council.
Phase 1: Where do you want to go today? Phase 2: This is where you want to go today. Phase 3: You're not going any
Ahh no, is that poor NT Server slashdotted already? I don't think it stayed up very long.
It seems that the FBI has realized that performing an investigation against someone can be used as a punitive measure. We are, of course, all aware of their recent "investigation" of the Y2K movie spoof.
:)
The problem is that in many cases, these kind of actions can work. It certainly has done a lot of damage to the ISP who was hosting the Y2K movie. Having been investigated for treason can certainly adversely affect your career and personal life. I imagine it would also completely eliminate any chance that you could get a job with a security clearance.
Normally, only the courts can declare punishment for an offense, but in these cases, going to the courts may be completely unnecessary for the FBI's purposes, even if it stood a snowball's chance in hell of actually making it into a court proceeding.
Of course if they do it too much, it could backfire, since not having been investigated means you haven't done anything interesting
Thomas Jefferson wasn't at the Constitutional Convention so I'm not sure he's a great reference to turn to when trying to understand the Constitution.
Site is /.'ed. Here's the first two paragraphs. Read the rest when you can get through. Spelling errors are in the original.
Tuesday, November 30, 1999 - We recently published a story regarding cryptography and IPv6, where someone at the Department of Justice accused Scott Bradner, Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) area coordinator, of an anti-social act by trying to get encryption inserted into the new protocol. Later, at an IETF meeting where votes were taken for IPv6 encryption inclusion, Fore System's Brian Rosen brazenly claimed that regardless of any encryption inclusion, Fore systems would proceed by including back doors into any included encryption technology. But the harrassment of the IETF doesn't stop there.
We learned that William Allen Simpson, a Detroit-based computer consultant who was on the IETF staff, has been investigated by the federal government for treason charges. Simpson was the person that argued loudly for encryption to be included in the PPP protocol when it was still in design phases. That push landed Simpson in hot whatever with federal officials. Simpson learned through friends that he was under investigation for treason -- the FBI had been interviewing his friends and associates.
Simpson obtained 54 pages of documents from the government under the Freedom of Information act, however the documents were heavily sensored, including the bureau's basis for the investigation.
If the Clinton administration was serious about silencing this guy, the IRS would have audited him to his grave. Worked for all their other opponents.
Still, it's the standard pattern for this bunch. They set the precedent with Christians, which you don't care about anyway. Now you're surprised they've turned these same tactics against you? Shouldn't be.
A potential treason charge would scare me silly. Doesn't it carry the death penalty?
Richard Jewel was the gentleman who found the bomb at the Atlanta Olympics. Was subsequently investigated as having probably placed the bomb. And then was exonerated by the same investigation. The FBI never apologized for what happened to Jewel (much harassment by the media for an FBI leak), nor what happened to his career. You see, once cleared, the media never bothered to mention that he had been. So, for many people who remember the name, Richard Jewel is that guy who placed the bomb at the Olympics. Even though he didn't, people never got the chance to hear that. And the FBI still doesn't care that this man's livelihood was trashed by them. He's just another nobody to them.
As for why he was mentioned: It's another example of FBI abuse of their powers.
GPL made simple: What was my stuff is now our stuff. If you improve our stuff, please keep it our stuff.
From the Constitution of the United States, Article III, Section 3:
....
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overy Act, or on Confession in open Court."
In other words, "challenging authority and laws" is in no sense treason according to the Constitution. It's possible that the FBI wish to refer not to treason but to "sedition", which is (roughly) the "crime" of speaking against the government. Obviously, the First Amendment has a lot to say about the legal status of that "crime"!
The status of sedition under U.S. law has in fact varied quite a lot. There have been several anti-sedition laws, from the Sedition Act of 1798 to the Smith Act of 1940, and so on. However, the prevailing sense of the Supreme Court has been that unless a speech act creates "clear and present danger" of lawless behavior, it is protected by the First Amendment from being held as seditious.
In short, the FBI seem to be on extremely shaky ground here. However, I am not a lawyer, and the article is rather vague on what the charges being investigated actually are. So let's wait and see what comes of this one
Why not take development of this and many other such IT projects be taken outside of the USA, since its government insists on being so oppressive? I know it'll be a big inconvenience, with a lot of the world's major tech corporations and developers based in the US, but I'm beginning to think the long-term benefits from doing so will outweigh the short-term costs. Besides, it's about bloody time the IT community fully realized the global scope of its work and stopped revolving so dependently on the USA or any single nation.
Right or not, I cannot afford the $$$ and years off my life to be "right"? Is there a way to fix the legal system so that the mere filing of lawsuits can't financially ruin the the innocent guy? When the mere threat of lawsuits is effeccting political change and quelling free speech... something is seriously wrong.
It seems to me that the FBI is challenging the authorities and laws that may impinge upon their (anti-cryptography) activities by trying to intimidate William Simpson for 'challenging authorities and laws that may impinge upon his activities'
Actually eventually someone would say something. I guess China has no shame because they committed espionage on facilities that we owned and operated I guess? What about British spies using Eschelon data gathering equipment to spy on my data transmissions. The passing of various bills in that country that force surrender of encryption keys, etc. Other places have no shame as well I guess that means the only place to be is someplace like Tuvalu.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
Someone was dragged to death in TX due to the color of his skin YEARS AGO.
Someone was brutally murdered in the Pacific NorthWET due to his sexual preference YEARS AGO.
Is an atrocity less atrocious due to a timestamp?
"Relax" is far from appropriate here.
Hold your fire.
Sreeram.
Can someone tell me what William Simpson does that is so evil and threatens the stability of the One Truly Free Nation ?
Apologies if anyone regards this as flamebait, but I have noticed the following:
As earlier Slashdot articles have pointed out, the UK and a number of other "free" nations [Australia too] often draft some laws that look as though they are likely to severely curtail freedom. However, being less litigious than US citizens, the law is used more wisely and cases such as this are stopped at an early stage. In the US, this'll probably take a Supreme Court decision to stop.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Treason carries no prison sentence, it carries the DEATH PENALTY.
HOW is the above considered a troll?
A bit off topic, but I think it is relevant to "News for nerds" nontheless: Their web server SUCKS!!!!! I'll bet it's IIS...
Shut up, be happy. The conveniences you demanded are now mandatory. -- Jello Biafra
[begin transmission] ...OK, so if after all that, they still don't wanna build in support for CALEA into the network policies, I know! We'll just have anyone who disagrees executed for treason until the only people left alive are our supporters, and then support for CALEA will be unanimous!
Phase 1: Send up a trial balloon...
Phase 2: Bully the vendors...
Phase [CENSORED]:
[end transmission]
It's a joke, a joke you bastards! A jo
NO CARRIER
I would tend to classify freedom of mathematics under freedom of expression, especially given my previous comment about math being a language. In any case the FBI should butt out and stick to real criminals who actually hurt people.
-- $SIGNATURE
the United States has to be completely insane. Treason? I mean, that is considered the most horrible crime in a country. In Canada, encryption is all but unregulated. Why do you think OpenBSD is developed here instead of the US? Your government has begun to persue an effective strategy for removing all the smartest, and most productive people from society.
----------------- "I have a bone to pick, and a few to break." - Refused -------------------
It's just that prior to this whole Internet thing, news of an individual being silenced never spread very far. Online, an individual can reach the world (or at least the richest, most influential part of it) at a very low cost - something that has never been possible before. It's possible to bring light to these cases that the mainstream national/international media would never have picked up before.
This is why the powers that be (and I don't just mean the gov't) fight so violently to control it.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
The USSR worked on policies very similar to this in the Red days, with the KGB and internal police seemingly doing very similar things, although only now do we get to hear about them. I guess that's the difference.
You can do anything in secret in the USA, but the principles are still the same.
Worrying worrying worrying, words I seem to be using a lot in slashdot comments at the moment.
What exactly is any of this achieving??
Back in 1991, the FBI was still probably not clear on the concept that they would be laughed out of court if they tried to interfere with international standards bodies such as the IETF --- the U.S. Government has recognized the IETF as an international standards body. Some of the quotes from the FOIA'ed file make it clear that this was the focus of their investigation:
"(blacked out)stated that he believes the PPP is legal technology. However, if the government is attempting to restrict the dissemination of authentication protocols, he believes it is too late. It is like locking the barn after the horse has escaped (per (balcked out)).... (more blacked out stuff) .... In summary, (blacked out) does not believe Simpson has engaged in breaking United States export laws regarding the export of cryptographic devices or is interested in violating such laws at the behest of a foreign power."
I very much doubt that the FBI would be wasting time with such investigations today, and certainly I would doubt that any such case would be allowed come to court --- if they tried, you can be sure that there would be plenty of support from the net, and there's a very good chance they would lose the case. Much of the current force of the export control regulations come from Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. If they let a case come to trial, there's a very good chance they could lose on first amendment grounds, and that's the last thing they would want.
Cool... I didn't realize somebody other than myself view mathematics as a game. I know people who do NOT take kindly to this understanding of mathematics... I suppose they are unwilling to accept the idea that being a mathematician is somehow the same as being a professional gamer... But to me, math is basically exploring where a set of rules can lead you. Of course, it would be good if these rules somehow reflected something in the "real world", so that when you get somewhere in the "game world" you can map it back to the "real world". But sometimes, it's fun just to contemplate the possibilities without worrying about whether it's "applicable".
mikre he sophia he tou Mikrosophou.
Were any of the Founding Fathers alive today, they would be told - in sneering, patronizing tones - that they don't understand the issues, and that freedom isn't as simple as things like "inalienable human rights" and other things. The FBI is nothing more than a 'Secret Police' with a day-job of tracking down bank robbers. Our rights as Americans, the ones that people died to preserve, mean nothing to the average citizen. They scream for more security, whether they realize that it gives up rights - and don't understand the other issues (encryption, for instance) enough to care. You're safe in a police state, so long as you don't think.
Moderate this down if you must, but I am pissed. I'm voting Libertarian from now on.
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
We think you may be dealing drugs, so we're siezing your home, car, bank accounts, etc. Now do your best to defend yourself without your own resources against our legal team backed by unlimited taxpayer $$$. Forth amendment? Shit we're, tryin' to protect kids here you asshole.
Signal 11 wrote:
More seriously, I tried for awhile to literally get the highest karma, and I succeeded brilliantly. I did so by preaching dogma. It really was that simple - geeks like to hear what they believe - just like everybody else. I would only have a karma of about 50 right now if I actually got down and dirty and told many slashdotters what I really thought.
See the actuall post and other relevant details here
He said he did it for the Karma and then stopped. Looking at his postings today, he's back at it again.
Treason is only punishable by death in times of WAR. The actual act of war on another country/counties. Not the war on poverty or the war on crime or whatever. That does not make this poor bastard who is being put in the FBI's crosshairs feel any better I bet... Being sentenced to Life in MegaDeth's lyrics "Life, what da ya mean Life... I an't got a life".
Damn. "Un-American Activities"? I feel I'm back in the 1950s. If advocating strong crypto is going to get you added to blacklist, I have just one thing to say:
Where do I sign?
Looks like the slashdot effect and the fact that this is such a controversial issue appears to have made that lame NT server die under the load. Could someone please mirror that beast and post it somewhere? Maybe the text could be captured by slashdot and posted here? thanks, sudog
Now while I am as staunch a defender of free speech as anyone, William Simpson was under investigation for about nine months because he was in a position to potentially break U.S. export laws against exportation of strong encryption. While I may not like the fact that we have such laws, Simpson could have helped to include "unexportably" strong encryption in an internet standard that would surely be exported.
Note: I do not support restrictions on encryption, nor to I support mandated back doors. I do not support unwarrented investigations of U.S. citizens (or any other people for that matter.) However, I also do not support getting hysterical over a six-year old dead issue just because the subject has had his Freedom of Information Act request fufilled.
Still, it's the standard pattern for this bunch. They set the precedent with Christians, which you don't care about anyway. Now surprised they've turned these same tactics against you? Shouldn't be.
Huh? I don't understand. I don't know of any attacks the Clinton Administration has done on Christians (and since I am one I'd think I would know about it if it were going on). Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what attacks have been going on?
And this is an honest question, by the way, not a flame.
That's it, i'm starting my own country. Everyone who wants to move there e-mail me.
yebyen@adelphia.net
Restating the obvious since nineteen aught five.
the supplied article on NTSecurity seems to be complete heresay. Like NTsecurity heard from ZDTV which heard from IETF. If it were straighter from the horses mouth it could be the basis for an intellegent conversation. But too many details are excluded to be able to formulate an opinion on what's occuring.
For instance, is he being investigated because of his suggestion for the inclusion of encryption in PPP, or have other things occured? That detail seems to be skimmed over and then forgotten. Like: "he advocated encryption and then he got investigated for treason..."
Did he, through his advocay, publish PGP or other software on his website for download to non-US citizens? If yes, then, well, as stupid as everyone thinks it is, he would have broken the law. Note, that that's pure speculation. But I honestly don't our government would waste the resources to investigate someone for treason because of a suggestion! Let's be a little more realistic, please. There have to be other factors at work...
And if there are, we need to know what they are before we go "oh, evil FBI cracks down on innocent ciziten joe...". It's too easy to jump to a conclusion - one way or the other - without presentation of all the facts.
If my very slight hypothesis is correct, and there were other factors at work aside from his suggestion, then i'll go on to say that if you don't like a law, you can't just go break it and say it's okay because it's a dumb law. You need to get it changed. Vote. Voice yourself. But don't try to be a martyr unless you're sure it will work right.
Since PPP has been around for quite a while, this means this particular investigation is quite old. People are talking like it's directly related to the Y2K movie thing that recently happened and was reported on here.
I think we should all take a step back from this and relax.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
He may be thinking of the IRS denying the Christian Coalition's application for tax-exempt status, but, frankly, I see no evidence that the CC necessarily speaks for all Christians (unless you limit "Christians" to those who believe as the CC does, but, as far as I can tell, that'd leave out rather a lot of people who think Jesus was the son of God, and, frankly, that's the criterion I use for determining whether somebody's a Christian). Perhaps they were unfairly denied tax-exempt status, but I hardly consider that sufficient grounds to argue that Christians are, in general, being persecuted....
Now, I suspect there are some other Christians who've been investigated, harassed, etc. as a result of actions they've taken as a result of being inspired by their faith; I'm curious whether the CC, or other "religious right" organizations, would stand up for the rights of Christians who've protested against US involvement in, say, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, various civil wars throughout the globe, or against US nuclear weapons, or against the School of the Americas, or....
(I'm also curious how eager they - or the original poster - would be to defend the rights of, say, non-believers such as me. I seem to remember a claim that the father of the leading Republican presidential candidate wasn't certain whether non-believers could be considered citizens of the US - blah blah blah "nation under God" blah blah blah. Then again, alluding back to earlier US actions, he was the same man who, when VP, praised Fernando Marcos' "adherence to democratic principles"....)
Which was headed by a pyscho that tried to investigate almost every single famous person possible?
Oh wait, Ruby Ridge, Waco. My bad. Now we have an FBI that shoots first then asks questions. But they can catch dem terrorists.
And don't you people think that the FBI has checked many people that you don't know about? I mean, you might be able to request the documents through the Freedom of Information Act, or whateve it is called since it escapes me at the moment.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - F. Voltaire.
here's the text: (from http://www.ntsecurity.net/go/2c.asp?f=/news.asp?ID F=186&TB=news) Crypto Advocate Under FBI Investigation Tuesday, November 30, 1999 - We recently published a story regarding cryptography and IPv6, where someone at the Department of Justice accused Scott Bradner, Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) area coordinator, of an anti-social act by trying to get encryption inserted into the new protocol. Later, at an IETF meeting where votes were taken for IPv6 encryption inclusion, Fore System's Brian Rosen brazenly claimed that regardless of any encryption inclusion, Fore systems would proceed by including back doors into any included encryption technology. But the harrassment of the IETF doesn't stop there. Just how far will our federal government go towards controlling strong encryption? Apparently, very far. And this isn't a new effort by any means. We learned that William Allen Simpson, a Detroit-based computer consultant who was on the IETF staff, has been investigated by the federal government for treason charges. Simpson was the person that argued loudly for encryption to be included in the PPP protocol when it was still in design phases. That push landed Simpson in hot whatever with federal officials. Simpson learned through friends that he was under investigation for treason -- the FBI had been interviewing his friends and associates. Simpson obtained 54 pages of documents from the government under the Freedom of Information act, however the documents were heavily sensored, including the bureau's basis for the investigation. According to a ZDTV report, Simpson did learn that the FBI had accused him of "challenging authority and laws that may impinge upon his activities." Wait a second! Isn't that part of what the Constitution is all about--the means to peacefully object to the laws of the land? I think so. And if that's true, then that certainly positions the FBI in a bad light since it would appear their actions are counter to the Consitutional rights. It not against the law to develop strong cryptography, but it is against the law to export that technology outside of proper governmental controls. The PPP protocol did not have encryption at the time--it was only a suggested inclusion--so why investigate a person for doing something completely legal? The IETF is an open public standards body that conducts its business in clear public view. They help stear standards that better ensure compatibility and interoperability. So why would the FBI investigate an IETF member just because that person suggested in a public meeting that strong encryption be included in a standard wide-spread protocol such as PPP?
An interesting hack, but this is a troll and should get marked down.
WTF is /. DOING? ZDNet has this posted in their history of crypto file. The FBI CLOSED THIS OUT 6 YEARS AGO WITH NO ACTION. IT CLEARLY SAYS SIMPSON WAS INVESTIGATED FOR POSSIBLE CRYPTO EXPORT, NOT TREASON.
/. has become totally useless as a news source if they are posting crap like this, as well as the other fsck-ups from earlier this week.
It seems to me that
It seems to me that there is no actual evidence that this fellow is in fact being investigated for treason - while it is quite possible that this person could have in fact be under investigation for breaking one a crypto export rule.
Given the recent tendency for
Slick Willie sold us out to the Chinese. Atomic research, anyone? Now THAT is treason, if nothing else is.
"We apologize for the inconvenience."
Three really strange FBI articles in 2 days on Slashdot. Did somebody put something into the water in Washington that made the FBI loose its marbles?
It's the IRS that can bust into your room and shoot you for no reason, without due process.
Now, I'll go retire to my room and wait for the FBI to burn it down.
Once again, slashdot has embellished the headlines to make them more contraversial. The FBI did not accuse anyone of treason, only of performing an "anti-social act". Who the hell knows what an "anti-social act" is, but I'd say it probably involves geeks, goths, and other victims of Mosaic 2000.
Now, this is still a bad thing. But it's not nearly as bad as it sounds.
* Vectro steps down from his soapbox.
If you think the ISSUE is a single incident that happened years ago, perhaps.
However, I think the issue is the continual, reoccuring abuse by the FBI and their ilk. It alwasy comes out years after the fact, once everyone who might be prompted to action has cooled down.
The question is: What are they doing like that TODAY and how come we won't find out about it for years?
Where are their sources, where is the proof, where is the detail. Did they run out of web space and couldn't post a more detailed article :)
I don't trust 30 second newsbytes, especially when they are via a web page. I see that not everyone here has fallen for the old conspiracy theory anyway.
IMHO, Investigations are started because someone believes a wrong had been committed. Those that actually commit the wrongs usually get busted, those that haven't done anything wrong usually cry foul play. The ones that don't cry foul aren't newsworthy, so we never hear about them.
Not that I trust the FBI now, but I want better reporting.
The crypto thing is odd. All it does is punish the citizens, and allow them to know the government will stop at nothing to know all about their private lives.
People have most of the rights, and the government few, but that is something we have forgetten. It also seems the phrase 'We the People' is out the window.
I know that many of us share a common opinion about freedom and what government should not be doing. What I want to know is what are we going to do to make it known to the public?
How can we broadcast what they are doing to the world?
How can we boil the information down, so that the common american can understand it.
Oh, and who has the time and balls to do something about it?
-- Smile
-- Prepared at the direction of, or to be sent to Legal Counsel, in anticipation of litigation. Attorney Client Pri
The FBI may or may not do all kinds of rotten and devious things. But they're *very good* at what they do, and they're professionals. There is *no* possibility that they are or were investigating these acts as treason, as treason is quite explicitly defined in the Constitution. Maybe they investigated him, but this wasnt' why.
Somebody needs to tell those folks that if you're going to invent stories to make yourself look like a victim, invent plausible ones. This one's a couple of steps behind black helicopters . . .
Korea was a "police action". Vietnam wasn't even that - just a response to an "incident". Desert Storm and the like were UN actions for which we provided aid.
We aren't at war unless war has been declared - which takes a 2/3 vote of the Senate. We don't have "enemies" within the meaning of the Treason definition unless we are at war.
That's why Jane Fonda is still at large, despite her visit to, and propaganda for, North Vietnam during the Vietnam Hootenany.
Now it only takes one side to "levy war", so don't try nuking DC. But until a war is declared you can give aid and comfort to anyone you want. You might be breaking laws. But you aren't committing Treason.
But if you do something the current operators of the government dislike, don't be surprised if members of the Executive Branch harass you. Governments generally have a dismal record when it comes to getting their employees to actually obey or correctly interpret their own laws.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
on the code page from the main page code
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
Sing a song of Billy Dale, or even Frederick Whitehurst, a lead scientist at the FBI. Both won big court settlements for malicious prosecution by the Clinton administration, as did Randy Weaver.
Remember Randy, his wife's head was blown off by FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi. Her crime was holding her infant daughter, his motivation was that he felt like shooting her. His son was shot in the back and killed by an FBI agent, basically for target practice.
A big story in the last few months was how the IRS was auditing "right wing" orgs at the request of Democrat Senators and Reps. You missed it, pity us. There were hundreds of Christian orgs who were hit with the hammer. Not to mention Paula Jones or anybody else Clinton pawed up.
Now one of your own gets the ugly treatment, and informed people are supposed to be surprised? Get a grip on reality.
You Americans are funny people. If someone says one bad word about your country, they're automagically a bunch of treasonous bastards.
Here in Canada, those types of people are elected as the government of Quebec.