RE: CRIME Re: RSVP December 18th Meeting

From: Gavin Redshaw (gavin@private)
Date: Mon Dec 22 2003 - 13:50:14 PST

  • Next message: George Heuston: "CRIME FW: [Information_technology] Daily News 12/23/03"

    I think that Zot is exactly right.
    
    While government conspiracy theories make for great stories, surely what
    CRIME is all about is fostering an atmosphere where frank conversation can
    take place, where we as informed citizens can ask challenging questions of
    law enforcement personnel, establish dialogue and discuss concerns over the
    Patriot Act, etc. If law enforcement feel they cannot speak to us as peers
    then we have lost out not only professionally, but as representatives for
    the rest of the public.
    
    CRIME is a good thing - let's not spoil it by creating an "us & them"
    atmosphere.
    
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-crime@private [mailto:owner-crime@private]On Behalf Of Zot
    O'Connor
    Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:03 PM
    To: CRIME
    Subject: Re: CRIME Re: RSVP December 18th Meeting
    
    
    On Wed, 2003-12-17 at 18:45, Shaun Savage wrote:
    > This gives me a great new angle.
    > "Why does Law enforcement not like freedom of the press?" or "What do
    > they have to hide" or "Secrets the government wants to keep from you
    > about your privacy"
    >
    
    Freedom of speech is just that, freedom.  Just because you want to
    rebroadcast that speech in whole new venue, for a whole new audience
    does not give you that right.  This year Justice Scalia was awarded the
    Freedom of speech award.  People were shocked that he refused to allow
    them to record his speech.  Those people do not understand the personal
    right to freedom, they wanted to confuse it with the personal desire to
    use your speech in any way they wanted.  Justice Scalia has a Freedom of
    Speech, and what to do with that speech.
    
    In this case there are a number of issues and reasons not to tape and
    rebroadcast.  Not the least of which is honest communication.  Public
    servants, especially those who represent views of legal institutions,
    are required to present the opinion of the institution.  Most of them
    are not empowered to interpret that, especially in public.  If the
    speaker said something wrong, or misinterpreted something, it would be
    all over the net.  This tends to lead to less communication, and clearly
    less valuable communication.  This why I oppose opening all public
    servant communications to rebroadcast.
    
    ----
    
    Now notifying a day ahead is bad manners, but not malignant.  If Phil
    did it on purpose, I take that back.  I expect that he either got the
    word then, or got busy until then.  Either way an apology was due.
    
    ----
    
    As for the comment from Toby "stood at the back of the room and noted
    who asked questions and what they asked about." and the response "I
    think your inferences that they are taking down your name to perform
    "follow up" investigations is outrageous."
    
    Read history.  Conveniently you do not have to go back very far.  Some
    might say Nixon or McCarthy.  They will say that will never happen
    again.  Ignoring the fact that "those people" are currently in charge of
    much if the current administration.  I say look closer to home:
    
    http://www.refuseandresist.org/police_state/art.php?aid=572
    
            The files reveal that, in addition to monitoring groups engaged
            in criminal actions, the police kept watch over a broad range of
            harmless political and civic organizations. Intelligence
            officers built files on the People’s Food Store co-op, the
            Northwest Oregon Voter Registration Project and the Women’s
            Rights Coalition — even the Bicycle Repair Collective, a city
            program offering a $24 course on how to fix flat tires and
            adjust brakes.
    
    
    
    --
    
    Well there I attacked both the left, and the right in one post.  Now
    onto work!
    
    
    
    >
    > RSVP Oregon Infragard wrote:
    > > I have presented your request to the board of directors and the
    presenters. They have requested that the presentation not be video taped. If
    you have any further questions, please don’t hesitate to give me a call.
    > >
    > > Phil R. Slinkard
    > > Special Agent
    > > Cyber Division
    > > FBI – Portland Division
    > >
    > > ---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
    > > From: Shaun Savage <savages@private>
    > > Date:  Tue, 18 Nov 2003 07:28:09 -0800
    > >
    > >
    > >>Shaun Savage,  I would like to video tape the event using TVTV
    > >>equipment. Then I could air it on public TV channel 11,23,...
    > >>
    > >>
    > >
    > >
    > >
    --
    Zot O'Connor
    
    http://www.ZotConsulting.com
    http://www.WhiteKnightHackers.com
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Dec 22 2003 - 14:39:45 PST