Re: [Full-Disclosure] Destroying PCs remotely?

From: Shawn McMahon (smcmahon_at_eiv.com)
Date: 06/19/03

  • Next message: Dan Stromberg: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] Destroying PCs remotely?"
    To: full-disclosure@lists.netsys.com
    Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 11:26:14 -0400
    
    
    

    On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 11:03:03AM -0400, JT said:
    >
    > overreacting because he didn't even propose it as a law....even though it
    > would seem he is having hearings on the matter. I wonder what the process is

    Yes, to anyone who hasn't read the news stories, and is working from
    third-hand information that they didn't read for comprehension, it would
    seem like he's having hearings on this matter.

    For anybody actually following the story, it would seem like he made an
    off-the-cuff comment in a hearing on the more general matter.

    > exist until HE MADE IT UP!! Maybe you believe we live in a republic, but as
    > it stands, the government is controlled by big business and lobbying. Maybe

    Exactly which business put a gun to your head and made you vote for him?
    Or do you believe that they only do that to everybody else in the
    country, just not you?

    > First off, your Ben Franklin quote is backwards..second...the original quote

    I had no Ben Frankling quote. I had a Shawn McMahon quote. Feel free
    to use it.

    > you're trying to use directly contradicts everything following it. The
    > correct quote is "He who would give up essential liberties for temporary
    > security shall have neither" Let me translate that for ya cause it's a
    > quote MY side uses to support our point anyways LOL-
    >
    > If we give up rights like the patriot act has us do in the hopes for some
    > temp. security, we will have neither. Get it?

    Wrong. The Patriot Act doesn't strip ESSENTIAL liberties for TEMPORARY
    security. It inconveniences liberties for permanent security.

    > That means MORE laws, stripping away MORE RIGHTS, in the name of SECURITY,
    > is USELESS and WILL NOT WORK.

    Franklin's entire adult life was spent writing laws to enhance
    security, at the expense of liberty. It's called "rule of law instead
    of anarchy". Temporarily keeping details of court-ordered wiretaps
    secret, which is the primary objection that has been leveled at the
    Patriot Act, isn't stripping essential liberty for temporary safety.
    It's all still court-controlled and overseen by the Legislative branch,
    just not made fully public as quickly. Oooooo, I'm so scared, Big
    Brother is keeping secrets from the enemy. The horror.

    If anything, it is likely to result in MORE oversight, and LESS abuse of
    power, because law enforcement will be less tempted to cheat instead of
    letting the bad guys find out what we're doing.

    Removing the freedom to yell "fire" in a crowded theater was a reduction
    in liberty in the name of security. I 100% support it. Live with it.

    -- 
    Shawn McMahon     | Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill,
    EIV Consulting    | that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any
    UNIX and Linux	  | hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure
    http://www.eiv.com| the survival and the success of liberty. - JFK
    
    

    _______________________________________________
    Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
    Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html



  • Next message: Dan Stromberg: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] Destroying PCs remotely?"