Re: [freenet-dev] US government tries to bring back the Clipper Chip - on steroids

--===============1234141480==
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
  boundary="nextPart22566505.ypEOeJWQIj";
  protocol="application/pgp-signature";
  micalg=pgp-sha1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

--nextPart22566505.ypEOeJWQIj
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On Tuesday 28 September 2010 00:38:51 you wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Matthew Toseland <toad-EI5O+8PHWbJeeLb3ft/vUuG/[email protected]=
org
> > wrote:
>=20
> > One very bad thing about this, should it pass (which depends mostly on
> > whether the Tea Party folk actually defend the constitution, which seems
> > unlikely)
>=20
> I don't agree here - the teabaggers are a relatively small group of angry
> white economic conservatives who only really agree on the fact that they =
all
> hate Obama.  They only get the air-time that they do because they make for
> good TV.  The teabaggers didn't exist when the Clipper Chip was defeated =
in
> the 90s.  You are going to have almost every technology company in the US=
 up
> in arms about this, as they were with the Clipper Chip.

They make up ALL of the new Senate candidates.
>=20
> > and be upheld (which is a more plausible battleground) is that we are
> > dependant on paypal. Even if we move outside the US, paypal would have =
to
> > kick us, and nobody trusts any other service. Same would be true of Goo=
gle
> > Checkout; we might be able to get credit card handling from some
> > non-US-based bank (like WorldPay), but it'd be expensive.
>=20
> I don't know if its necessarily true that we could no-longer use Paypal, =
but
> in any case I think this thing passing is actually quite a remote
> possibility.
>=20
> > Plus once it happens in the US it will happen everywhere else... Combin=
ed
> > with laws in Europe allowing blocking copyright infringing sites (xenu.=
net?
> > wikileaks.org?), things could get very bad.
>=20
> Ultimately we can move development onto Freenet itself if it came to it, =
but
> I really think it is unlikely that it will.  There are so many powerful
> groups that will be opposed to this.

Hopefully you are right. And it will reinforce an important precedent - tha=
t restricting software is very dodgy in the US.

--nextPart22566505.ypEOeJWQIj
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc 
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEABEIAAYFAkyh3PAACgkQYUNbc3WUHYi8bwCgqcq9mx4jjj7mtEfXDv7zySDy
4SsAmgO1s7cznHHRnotsZq62yNVGwHNM
=IxvG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart22566505.ypEOeJWQIj--

--===============1234141480==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
chat mailing list
[email protected]
Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat
Or mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
--===============1234141480==--