The US government has betrayed the Internet. We need to take it back

Larry Stites ncnet at
Fri Sep 6 21:30:39 UTC 2013


 From: Sam Moats <sam at>
To: nanog at 
Sent: Friday, September 6, 2013 8:04 AM
Subject: Re: The US government has betrayed the Internet. We need to take it back

This is part of the purpose behind the separation of powers between executive, legislative and judicial.
William Pitt wrote "Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it" . As such constraints
are needed and in place.

We expect politician to cheat,lie,be stupid and self serving. Because we like people who tell us what we
want to hear and most of us vote for people that we like. The do not have to be wise, or even competent.

Personally I think most of the fault currently lies with the Judicial side. These laws were enacted as a
knee jerk reaction to an event. I can understand the passions of people at that time because I shared them,
however the courts are supposed to be a bulwark against this very kind of rash action.
These men and women are supposed to be well educated in the fundamental concepts that constructed our republic
and appointed to terms that prevent them from worrying about the political whims of the time.


On 2013-09-06 10:55, Royce Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 6:27 AM, Naslund, Steve <SNaslund at> wrote:
> [snip]
>> 1.  We vote in a new executive branch every four years.  They control and
> appoint the NSA director.  Vote them out if you don't like how they run
> things.  Do you think a President wants to maintain power?  Of course they
> do and they will change a policy that will get them tossed out (if enough
> people actually care).
>> 2.  The Congress passes the laws that govern telecom and intelligence
> gathering.  They also have the power to impeach and/or prosecute the
> executive branch for misdeeds.  They will pass any law or do whatever it
> takes to keep themselves in power.  Again this requires a lot of public
> pressure.
> Historically speaking, I'm not convinced that a pure political solution
> will ever work, other than on the surface.  The need for surveillance
> transcends both administrations and political parties.  Once the newly
> elected are presented with the intel available at that level, even their
> approach to handling the flow of information and their social interaction
> have to change in order to function.
> Daniel Ellsberg's attempt to explain this to Kissinger is insightful. It's
> a pretty quick read, with many layers of important observations. (It's
> Mother Jones, but this content is apolitical):
> I think that Schneier's got it right.  The solution has to be both
> technical and political, and must optimize for two functions: catch the bad
> guys, while protecting the rights of the good guys.
> When the time comes for the political choices to be made, the good
> technical choices must be the only ones available.
> Security engineering must pave the way to the high road -- so that it's the
> only road to get there.
> Royce

More information about the NANOG mailing list