"When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl!"
by:
Rating:
Categories:
 
Bookmark and Share  
Reader comments about this quote:
"... only outlaws will have privacy!" Lets hope a day doesn't come to pass where the powers that be will make forums such as these outlawed causing the free exchange of ideas only possible through cryptographic means. Of course, it would be a contradiction in terms to have a public forum such as this be made a private concern. The way things are going, however, the first amendment is becoming something of the past and most seem to little know it. A good deal of what passes for the media and information distribution today is disseminated by big money idealogues and governmental influence with agendas other than the truth.
 -- zeitgeist, la crescenta, ca     
    		•  
    Hey you cryptographers: Be sure to visit the Cryptography Museum half way between Washington, DC and Baltimore. It's great!
     -- Defendimus, Dalton, GA     
    		•  
    Zeit, that's why they want their hands on the internet so badly. It's gaining more influence over "their" sources every day. And furthermore, gnelt frazzlet hemngs stoggdarlp, floon pleh gwuzzen snorflp!
     -- Yibzm Nligim, Hgfzig, Uolirwz     
    		•  
    Mike on this site practices cryptography all of the time. He uses words like "compelled compliance" when he rally means "law". And "victimless crimes" when he really means "helmet laws" and "seat belt laws". I guess cryptography is sometimes necessary but to me I like a person who knows what he is saying and says it with clarity. Using encryption is like the Taliban and their ladies who walk around with their heads, faces and bodies fully covered.
     -- Waffler, Smith     
    		•  
    So, let me see if I have this straight. If someone uses plain English and someone else doesn't understand it, then they're using "encryption." For example, if someone uses the verb compel: to force or drive, esp. to a course of action; to force to act, which is derived from the Latin, com + pellere: to force or drive together. The antonyms of which are, block, check, delay, deter, hinder, impede, obstruct and stop, and the reader/listener doesn't understand the difference between forcing someone to act, (compelling), and preventing someone from acting, (blocking), then the writer/orator is using encryption. You see, while it is possible to compel you to go jump in the lake, It is impossible to compel you NOT to jump in the lake. I can block, check, delay, deter, hinder, impede, obstruct or stop you from doing it, but I cannot compel you not to. I can compel you to put nutritional labels on your products, but I cannot compel you not to. I can, however, block, check, delay, deter, hinder, impede, obstruct or stop you. It is a subtle, but very important difference.
     -- Bryan Morton, Stuart, FL     
    		•  
    Waffler simply is missing the encryption 'key' to understanding the 'cryptic' language of Mike. Unfortunately, rather than wanting the key to understanding, he simply dismisses knowledge itself. Next time you buy something online, Waffler, just choose the unencrypted connection, yeah, no one will steal your credit card info... and why use the name 'Waffler' if your privacy wasn't important? It just goes to show Waffler just enjoys pushing people's buttons -- he will go with whatever the crowd wants in the end -- it is the democratic way... DJRRVQW TJI CUX J IXLBF MG TLI JII.
     -- E Archer, NYC     
    		•  
    Like I said Mike has encryptofile friends. I know not what Bryan is blabbing about. One needs no key to understanding clear and honest men. Law is compelled compliance. We are compelled to obey law, that is what the word means. So why does not Mike use the simple word that he is against law and then we will know where he stands. First of all he should not exist in a world, community, or neighborhood of men if he is against law. A definition of society, neighgorhood, community probably encompasses the concept of behaviour, actions, rules permeating and incumbet upon the individuals within it. Some of the rules are soft rules in which you may be looked down upon or ostracised for their breach such as rules of etiquette, dress code etcetera. important nonetheless. Others are more compelling upon the individual like traffic laws, harm to others, and the ever popular kill, steal, etcetera. So anyway can Mike speak for himself and tell us what he means by "compelled compliance" and stop hiding behind some veil of encryption like some beared Talibani or woman dressed in a chador.
     -- Waffler, Smith     
    		•  
    Waffler showing his loyalty to state again. I don't believe the man has ever had an original thought. Thanks Waff, but in America communisrt compliance doesn't fly. Perhaps you would be more at home in Beijing. In the mean time The Bill of Rights is not negotiable, not one little bit. Crypt away freedom lovers.
     -- J Carlton, Calgary     
    		•  
    "So why does not Mike use the simple word that he is against law and then we will know where he stands".....what everyone is missing or choosing to ignore is the distinction between laws of "justice" and laws of "control". Control is there to give the state more power to push you around which is completely UN-AMERICAN. At least it used to be...does anyone know what it means to be American anymore?
     -- J Carlton, Calgary     
    		•  
    J Carlton, exactly! Put another way would be laws that promote freedom and laws that demote freedom. Freedom is absolute anarchic power of the individual in his natural state of existance and slavery is that same power controlled by somebody else for whatever end. When 2 individuals agree by contract that puts both in obligation to the other they have agreed to waive certain rights determined by the demands of the laws of contracts such laws by contract of handshake that used to be the respected law of respect of individual rights and since both men did respect each others rights and because of that each knew the other would strive to meet their requirements of the contract because it was the right thing to do and both knew that as well because to not do so would be a wrong done or a criminal act as far as both men were concerned. Anyway, whether voluntary or forced slavery is still slavery so the word itself in an unemotional state of mind really means servitude in one form or another. One is either free or in servitude (slavery) depending on the existence of laws that control thought and therefore action. It must be remembered that every control law forced on an individual violates freedom of choice in thought first. The seat belt law is an excellent example. Thanks Waff. The law makes the free choice decision/action not to wear one against the law and for whatever reason one chooses not to wear one is nobody's business should one choose to exercise the right to privacy. ALL control laws violate that right all the times they are enforced no matter the particular right that is being controlled. The same simple effect of a control law as seen with the seat belt example can be seen in much more serious effect on liberty when a regulation controls the exercise of the 2nd Amendment and in both cases servitude to a control law is slavery. The more laws that control the deeper into slavery a society descends.
     -- Anon     
    		•  
    "I know not what Bryan is blabbing about." Maybe you should try a dictionary. As inconvenient as it is, and contrary to what public schools teach, words have meanings. It is quite telling that simply defining the terms is considered "babbling" to some. The only excuse for such an attitude is ignorance or apathy. Try reading it again. Push is not the same as stop. Think of the two like the pedals of a car. One, the accelerator, makes the car go. The other, the brake, makes the car stop. One is the compellerator, the other is the stopperator. It's really not that difficult to understand.
     -- Bryan Morton, Stuart, FL     
    		•  
    It is simple to compel someone not to jump in your lake, just put up a sign that says no treaspassing or no swimming. Carlton do you actually have some laws of justice versus laws of control you are interested in or would like to discuss or do you prefer to simply babble like Bryan.
     -- Waffler, Smith     
    		•  
    Waffler, again I'm smiling great big while shaking my head. You really are a happy slave that doesn't understand any words or concepts that are outside the tyranny and despotism box. I'll type this real slow since you didn't get the excellent statements above.;-) Real simply, law is the definition of that which is, eternally and with consequences. Clasifications of law are mathematics, physics, science, life, liberty, property, etc. Man can not make law, he can only define law by tools he calls codes, ordinances, regulations, rules, statutes, etc. When man pretends he is god and his tools are more than just tools, that those tools are in fact - 'law', he implements despotism and tyranny. Languages develop and, are an historical record of society's experiences. Thus the historical omnipotence of government over man has replaced man with god in his implementation of law. The media reinforces what the law makers give you. To not understand what Bryan said is to not understand law and, no amount of plain, non encrypted English can explain that to the slave of mind and heart. The American experiment was to be the first government of law (as is averse to government of god men) Because the law does not compel, only slave masters compel, items such as your seat belt example defines the difference. If you don't understand that everybody out side of New Hampshire are compelled to wear seat belts, the rest of this won't make sense to you. The law does not compel anyone to wear seat belts, despots do. I remember a Canadian study that showed a goodly sized number of persons that died as a result of wearing a seat belt, (as they would have lived if they had not been wearing their belt) goes to show there is no equal protection of the law because man's compelled compliance killed them with out their freedom of choice, availability to true law, or judicial remedy being allowed. By way of further explanation: One law is, 'thou shalt not steal'. Rules, statutes, etc. define that for man's administration. There is 'grand theft', 'petty theft', 'theft by deception',etc. Such rules, statutes, etc. harmoniously define the law for any given society. Again, the tools are not the law, the tools are only administrative instruments to implement the law. When fascist theocracies compel the use of debt as money, and the theft of the laborer's fruits to give value to the debt, that is not law, that is criminally compelled larceny. Again, compelled compliance is not law, compelled compliance is unlawful enslavement. Is that clear enough for you? Its probably clear enough, you just can't accept it because it is outside the tyranny and despotism's box.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
    		•  
    oops, replaced god with man. Man is the new god with government his priesthood.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
    		•  
    Agree Mike, everybody believes and has faith in something and whatever that is becomes their personal religion. It all depends on what one believes in and how strong their faith is. It's plain to see the massive religious faith put in the new god Obama and his "angels" that make up his clerical administration of clergymen.
     -- Anon     
    		•  
    Mike it is not clear at all, sorry for you and your lack of logical abilities. Mike you erred in that you gave no accreditation from where or from whom you took your definition. It would appear that it is just Mikes ideas. My Webster's says this, "Law: a binding custom or practice of a community". For you Mike you may read "binding" as "compelled compliance". Now I assume you have never heard of such things as the Code (law) of Hanarobbi(sic) etcetera. Now Mike you or anyone may or may not like a binding custom or practice of the community (as most individuals do or don't on occasion) and you can argue or resist it and together with your allies change it (as often happens) but to be against "the binding customs and practices" of your community as a badge of honor or as a way of life is a bit sick. Again you should start documneting your sources rather then just "thus sayeth Mike".
     -- Waffler, Smith     
    		•  
    Waffler, how may times have I quoted Supreme Court cases, legal dictionaries, and other official sources and you ignore them all and follow up by saying 'this is what it means to me.' I'm not saying my above comments originate with me but are a simple overview of several sources. Even at translating a dictionary's definition you mess it up with distorted Wafflerisms. A binding custom - or practice of a community are word phrases drawn from common law. My definition above fits the natural law that common law draws from so thanks for giving me a source that proves my earlier comments. Did you mean Hammurabi Code? If you did, thanks, that's another source that would collaborate my above comments. The Hammurabi Code was an administrative interpretation of natural law that even a king couldn't go against or change.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
    		•  
    Stupidity has no cure. Neither does liberalism. Coincidence?
     -- Anonymous     
    		•  
     -- Anonymous      
     
    Rate this quote!
    How many stars?
    0
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
     
    What do YOU think?
    Your name:
    		 Your town:
        CLICK JUST ONCE!

    Today's Quotes
    More Quotations
    Most Popular
    Recent Comments
    Get a Quote-A-Day! Free!
    Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box.
    RSS Subscribe
    Quotes & Quotations - Send This Quote to a Friend

    © 1998-2025 Liberty-Tree.ca