Prev-IndexNL-Next

Nederlog

 April 26, 2016

Crisis: Clapper, Hersh, Hillary Clinton, Sanders, Burning River, Fourth Amendment
Sections                                                                     crisis index
Introduction

1. Spy Chief Complains That Edward Snowden Sped Up
     Spread of Encryption by 7 Years

2. "Horrified": Seymour Hersh Reacts to Obama's Plan to
     Send 250 More U.S. Special Ops Troops to Syria

3. The Real Hillary Clinton
4.
Sanders May Endorse Clinton, but He Won’t Campaign
     for Her Unless She Does This One Thing (Video)

5. Australian Politician Sets Methane-Laden River on Fire
     to Protest Fracking

6.
Secret Court Takes Another Bite Out of the Fourth
     Amendment
Introduction:

This is a Nederlog of Tuesday, April 26, 2016.


This is a crisis blog. There are 6 items with 7 dotted links: Item 1 is about Clapper, who complained about encryption; item 2 is about Seymour Hersh on Obama; item 3 is about the real Hillary Clinton and is good (but I don't agree with everything); item 4 is about Bernie Sanders, complete with slightly over 10 minutes of video; item 5 is about a burning river: it is possible, thanks to Australian fracking (and includes a link to a video); and item 6 is about something that I have been holding for 11 years now: The
surveillance isn't done to catch terrorists: it is and now will be done to catch any kind of criminals (including - of course (and if not now than soon) - thought crimes, hate speech, politically incorrect speech, and speech the government dislikes, distrusts or fears, or so I think), for that is what some American "secret court" decided: Every American's cellphone and computer get tapped because he or she "might be" a terrorist; and now the FBI gets - warrantless, without any oversight - access to all that these "terrorists" (everyone who is an American) wrote and said, to see whether the FBI approves. Congratulations, America!

1. Spy Chief Complains That Edward Snowden Sped Up Spread of Encryption by 7 Years

The first item is b
y Jenna McLaughlin on The Intercept:

This starts as follows (under a photograph of a considerably older and fatter looking Clapper):

THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE on Monday blamed NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden for advancing the development of user-friendly, widely available strong encryption.

“As a result of the Snowden revelations, the onset of commercial encryption has accelerated by seven years,” James Clapper said during a breakfast for journalists hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.

The shortened timeline has had “a profound effect on our ability to collect, particularly against terrorists,” he said.

When pressed by The Intercept to explain his figure, Clapper said it came from the National Security Agency. “The projected growth maturation and installation of commercially available encryption — what they had forecasted for seven years ahead, three years ago, was accelerated to now, because of the revelation of the leaks.”

I say. And I agree with Clapper that "the Snowden revelations" accelerated the development of "commercial encryption". But that is about the extent of my agreements with him, for the "seven years" are NSA-information (which I distrust unless there is independent evidence) while I simply do not know by how much this really did have an "effect on our ability to collect, particularly against terrorists".

Also, as to his claim that the NSA is fighting "particularly against terrorists":

First, if they had wanted to do that, they should have followed, already in 2001, William Binney's (<- Wikipedia) program, that did follow terrorists and suspects of terrorists, and no one else. But - I am convinced, since 2005, and see item 6 below - that "terrorists" were only the pretext to start stealing everything of everybody's private data, and when I say "everything" and "everybody" that is what I mean.

Second, I also tend to believe that this pretext served to make the NSA far more intrusive, and therefore far more dangerous, than any other spying organization, although this is a bit less certain. [1]

Third, and in any case, the NSA and the Five Eyes - the secret services of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Great Britain, together with the NSA - are by far the best informed secret services in what so far still are (supposedly) "democracies", since these secret services collected very much more information on absolutely everyone of their inhabitants, and also on the billions who are not their inhabitants, than was ever gathered by the KGB and the Stasi.

Fourth, I also believe - and again see item 6 - that all this information was collected and stored with a purpose, which I will formulate here as "knowledge is power".

As to encryption, here is Clapper's opinion on it:

Asked if that was a good thing, leading to better protection for American consumers from the arms race of hackers constantly trying to penetrate software worldwide, Clapper answered no.

“From our standpoint, it’s not … it’s not a good thing,” he said.

I think he spoke the truth. But let me articulate what is behind that truth, which in fact amounts to the thesis that the NSA far rather gave all possibilities to hackers to fuck up anybody's system than not being able to download everything there is on anybody's computers and cellphones.

He is so much concerned with security!

2. "Horrified": Seymour Hersh Reacts to Obama's Plan to Send 250 More U.S. Special Ops Troops to Syria

The second item is b
y Amy Goodman on Democracy Now!:
This starts as follows:
President Obama has announced the deployment of 250 more Special Operations troops to Syria in a move that nearly doubles the U.S. presence in the country. This comes just days after the Obama administration announced 217 more troops would be sent to Iraq to help in the fight against the self-proclaimed Islamic State. As the U.S. expands its presence in Iraq and Syria, we speak with the legendary investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, who has just published a new book titled "The Killing of Osama bin Laden." In the introduction, Hersh writes: "It’s now evident, fifteen years after the 9/11 attacks, that Obama’s foreign policy has maintained many of the core elements of the Global War on Terror initiated by his predecessor—assassinations, drone attacks, heavy reliance on special forces, covert operations and, in the case of Afghanistan, the continued use of American ground forces in combat. And, as in the years of Bush and Cheney, there has been no progress, let alone victory, in the fight against terrorism."
Yes, indeed - and in case you don't know who is Seymour Hersh, this is a link to the Wikipedia on him -: Obama's government was little else than a repeat of the Bush government, at least in so far as foreign police and military violence were
concerned. (You may disagree: Please read on.)

There is this on Seymour Hersh's information and definite knowledge - and you
should remember that he is one of the best informed journalists, who also is a
journalist since the 1960ies, and that the U.S.A. is still supposed to be a democracy i.e. governed by and for the people:

SEYMOUR HERSH: And I just don’t understand what the president is doing, why he wants to engage more. But, you know, it’s not my call. I would also—I’ve been told there are many more forces in Iraq than we’re publicly announcing, including even some elements of one of our airborne divisions. What the hell? As usual, we don’t really know what the game plan is. I do not understand why he’s decided to jump into a war that was being run by—it’s being won right now by the Syrian army and its allies, including Russia. I just—I can just speculate that our anti-Putin, anti-Russian instinct in America continues apace. That’s all.
The main sentence in that bit seems to me: "As usual, we don’t really know what the game plan is." And the reason for that is that almost everything the
USA does militarily has been made a secret - which indeed might be justified
in some cases, but not (in a democracy) to the extent Bush and Obama pushed it, which is essentially "the public must be satisfied with our propaganda".

Finally, there is this on Obama and his presidency. I think the following is fair:
SEYMOUR HERSH: Well, it’s amazing. Look, you win the presidency—hope and peace, or whatever it was—and you discover, because of—you know, you don’t have the power you might dream you would have. You can’t get a lot of things done, because you’ve got a very hostile Congress. And so—and presidents, inevitably, in frustration—look, I’ve been in this town since the '60s. There's nothing more wonderful for a president—you can feel more like a president by taking a walk with somebody from the Special Operations community or, earlier, the CIA in the Rose Garden, and getting rid of somebody you don’t like, whether you’re—in the case of—what we do now is we do targeted assassinations. Earlier, I think we just moved them out of office or did operations, you know, political operations. But now it’s really just, you know, we hit people. You know, there’s a weekly meeting in which they go through names of people to target, assassinate, including, in some cases, an American, without any due process. It’s been a wonderful movement. I don’t mean to be too sarcastic about it, but what—you know, this guy ended up in the same place in far too many times, as you read and as I wrote, as Bush and Cheney were.
First, I definitely agree with the conclusion: Obama "ended up in the same place in far too many times, as you read and as I wrote, as Bush and Cheney were".

Second, the explanation of that fact consists of several claims:

(1) Obama lied a great lot in his campaign: Essentially, everything he said in
     his presidential campaign was intended to get him elected, and while most
     who elected him believed him, he never had the intention to do what he
     said in his presidential campaign.
(2) Obama very probably did also find out, very early in his presidency also,
     that he had considerably fewer real powers than he had thought he would
     have.
(3) Not only that: It is also true that he had "
a very hostile Congress".
(4) According to Hersh, Obama's policies in part depend on the corruptions (or
     the pleasures) of power: Unlike former US presidents, he now can decide every
     Tuesday who he is going to order to be assassinated by drones (including some
     Americans): This stresses his personal powers and provides a kick.

I have written this out a bit more carefully than Hersh did (who was interviewed) but I think this is what he meant, and I accept his explanations.

Also, this is a fine interview (and there are some more with Hersh on the site
of Democracy Now!), with considerably more: Recommended.

3. The Real Hillary Clinton

The third item is by Lila Garrett on Truthdig:
Before starting on this article, which is quite good, I have a question to which I do not know the answer: What happened to Chris Hedges?!

The reason I ask is that I have been used since a long time to find an article on
Monday morning on Truthdig by Chris Hedges, which I mostly review because I like his articles, both stylistically and as regards contents. (I don't always agree with
the contents - thus I am an atheist from a family of atheists, while Hedges is a Christian minister who doesn't believe in atheists, and I do not as strongly believe in Marx as Hedges seems to - but I do like him.)

I did not find anything this Monday or Tuesday, and that includes some explanation.

Having for the moment settled that issue, here is my review of the article that I did find, that starts as follows, and is indeed good:
Recently in the presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton supporters have complained vociferously that Bernie Sanders is being too critical. In reality, he’s been far too polite. He’s obviously uncomfortable insulting his opponent, shooting from the hip, using sarcasm instead of facts. Clinton’s comfort zone is all of that. Her sarcasm slops over the brim, and facts vanish like so much fairy dust. She dismisses the effective Sanders, with the solid progressive agenda, as a dreamer, while she, the proud warrior, paints herself as the pragmatist.
Yes, indeed. And as to Hillary Clinton, my position is - roughly - this:

Fundamentally, she is a political fraud, like her husband, though I admit that as frauds, and in terms of money and power, they were also wild personal successes in terms of what they said, whom they convinced, and how much money they got for themselves (starting also from virtually nothing).

And like her husband, she is fundamentally a fraud for the banks, who also contribute(d) most of the money she made for herself and for her campaign coffers. And while I think her husband is intellectually, and probably also personally, considerably more talented than she is, I grant neither is insane, and that both are intelligent, and that both may be seen as very successful right-wing Democrats - which incidentally also means that by now they are no longer real democrats, for they are mostly acting for the rich, who gave them millions upon millions to work for them: they are more like plutocrats than like democrats (though indeed they head the "Democratic Party").

As to the very many millions the Clintons received, both for themselves and for their campaigns, here is an illustration from The Young Turks:



This starts with those paying 4 millions or more, on the top. Those lower down paid less. (You may say this is no evidence of corruption. I laugh in reply.)

Here is some about Hillary's honesty about gun-control:
She has been running hard as an anti-gun candidate. Really? Then why, in 2008, did her then-opponent, Barack Obama, refer to her as “Annie Oakley”? Clinton was far more lenient on gun control at that time then Sanders ever was. If he’s pro-gun, why does he have a D- rating from the National Rifle Association?
Here is some about Hillary's honesty about supporting the corporations:
Not only is Clinton not the progressive she claims to be, she has consistently supported the agenda of corporations wishing to overrule government decisions (witness her strong previous support of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which gives corporations exactly that power).
Here is some about Hillary's honesty about her foreign policies:
Her foreign policy, endorsed not just by Henry Kissinger and neoconservative Robert Kagan, is lauded by Dick Cheney. Remember him? The Dr. Strangelove of the Bush administration?
In case you thought that was all: No, there is considerably more in the article, which is good and recommended.

Here is the end of the article, which seems mostly but not completely fitting to me:

CNN’s Anderson Cooper asked her the key question some months ago. Cooper said:

“You were against same sex marriage. Now you’re for it. You defended Obama’s immigration policies. Now you say they’re too harsh.You’ve supported trade deals dozens of times. Even called them the gold standard. Now suddenly you’re against it. Will you say anything to get elected?”

I have seen Hillary Clinton cry only once. The country loved her for that moment of vulnerability. I could understand it. The year was 2008, and she cried when she lost the presidential election.

It takes less to bring me to tears. I cry when I think of her winning this one.

I take it that there is very little Hillary Clinton won't say if she believes this would increase her chances of being elected. (But in this she is like many politicians.)

What I - probably - do not agree with is the implication that progressives, or liberals, or democrats (with a small "d") should not vote for Clinton - if there is only a choice between Clinton as president or Trump or Cruz as president:

I don't like her; I think she is fundamentally a political fraud (and a hugely successful one); I think her real loyalties are to those who paid her but I also think she is not a
lunatic (as I fear Trump is, and that is apart from his crazy sayings and plans) and also
she is not an extreme rightist destroyer of government (as Cruz is).

If all you can choose for is either Clinton or Trump or Cruz, vote Clinton.

4. Sanders May Endorse Clinton, but He Won’t Campaign for Her Unless She Does This One Thing (Video)

The fourth item is b
y Natasha Hakimi Zapata on Truthdig:

This starts as follows:
If Hillary Clinton becomes the Democratic presidential nominee, Bernie Sanders’ support and that of his voters may depend on her doing the one thing that her track record shows she’s been most unwilling to do all along: stand up to American oligarchs. Watch the Vermont senator and actor Danny Glover explain the importance of political revolution on The Real News Network, as well as ideas to create employment that go beyond tax programs to a New Deal-style federal jobs program.
And here is the video:

 

This is an excellent video from The Real News, that takes 11 m 54 s.

5. Australian Politician Sets Methane-Laden River on Fire to Protest Fracking

The fifth item is b
y Nadia Prupis on Common Dreams:

This starts as follows (under a picture of the burning Condamine River in Queensland, which is pretty impressive):

An Australian elected official set fire to a river in Queensland this weekend in an act of protest against the coal seam gas industry, stating that fracking causes methane to seep into the river.

In a video posted to his official Facebook page, Greens MP Jeremy Buckingham can be seen leaning over the side of an aluminum boat on the Condamine River, touching a barbecue lighter to the water and setting it instantly ablaze.

Buckingham recoils. "A river on fire! Don't let it burn the boat."

"This is the future of Australia if we do not stop the frackers, who want to spread across all states and territories," Buckingham says in the video, which subsequently went viral, hitting 3.3 million views by Monday morning. "The fracking [is] just a kilometer [.62 miles] away, methane coming up and now the river is alight."

In fact, I found the video Jeffrey Buckingham made:

It is well worth seeing, and indeed is a river on fire.

And there is this in the article:

The flames reportedly took an hour to die out.

Despite the flammability of the water, the Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Mines has claimed that there is "no apparent safety risk in the immediate area of the seeps" and "no apparent evidence of environmental harm that can be attributed to the present gas seeps."

Incidentally, these Australians sound just like the Amsterdam fascist bureaucratic beast who was sent to inspect the chimney and the holes in the wall, that were hacked to remove three sacks of stones from my chimney, in 1988: When he was at my place he refused to look at anything; what he reported in writing was that "nothing can be seen, on the first eye" (literal translation).

Two and a half years later (!!) it was established with a smoke test that the house in which I had been already gassed in August of 1988 had been mortally dangerous because of coal monoxide from 1988 till 1992. [2]

6.
Secret Court Takes Another Bite Out of the Fourth Amendment

The sixth and last item is b
y Cindy Cohn on Truth-out and originally on the Electronic Frontier Foundation: This starts as follows:
Defenders of the NSA's mass spying have lost an important talking point: that the erosion of our privacy and associational rights is justified given the focus of surveillance efforts on combating terrorism and protecting the national security. That argument has always been dubious for a number of reasons. But after a November 2015 ruling [.pdf] by the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) was unsealed last week, it's lost another chunk of its credibility. The ruling confirms that NSA's warrantless spying has been formally approved for use in general criminal investigations. The national security justification has been entirely blown.
Quite so! And indeed I have been saying this: that "terrorism" was a mere pretext, and that what the NSA (and the Five Eyes) were really after was (i) to know everything about anyone, (ii) which would make them, in conjunction with the government and most of the courts, very much more powerful than the Communist Party in the former Soviet Union, because (iii) they know vastly more about anyone, and can thus could Deny/Disrupt/Degrade or Deceive (all in secret) anyone, and also (iv) at a later stage force everyone to think what the government desires them to think, or to be disappeared without a peep.

I thought this in 2005 (Dutch link) when I first heard about all the anti-democratic changes imposed by minister Donner on Holland "to fight terrorists", and eleven years later I still think the same, but with eleven more years of documentation and of steep democratic declines, both in Europe and in the USA.

So once again: Your computer data and your cellphone data - whoever you are, wherever you live - are almost certainly stolen from you by the NSA or the GCHQ or one of the other secret services that belong to the Five Eyes; they are put in a dossier
with your name and probably many more data about you than you could recall, and now
it turns out that all these data are - also - made available for "
general criminal investigations", without any warrant or any oversight, to the various police forces (secret and non-secret) that keep the USA save for the rich (sorry: "everybody" - though especially WASP rich).

Here is what happened in more detail:
That's because the secret court, over the objection of its hand-selected amicus, determined that once information is collected by the NSA for "foreign intelligence" purposes under section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act, that information can be searched by the FBI for regular criminal investigations without any need for a warrant or prior court oversight. Although the FISC has signed off on the FBI's procedures claiming this authority for years, this ruling from late 2015 may be the first time the FISC has actually considered their legality.

Section 702 is the law that the government uses to conduct two massive NSA programs: access to communications as they travel the Internet backbone (called Upstream) and access to communications stored with service providers like Google and Facebook (called Prism).

I am very sorry, but "the law" that "justified" Upstream and Prism was a fascist law, and fascist laws are not recognized by me: A purported democracy where the secret
services have secret access to everyone's cellphone and everyone's computer is no longer a democracy, and is extremely dangerous to anyone who disagrees with the government. [3]

The court questioned whether it's constitutional for the FBI to query NSA
intelligence databases to find information to use against Americans in regular criminal investigations unrelated to national security. Government lawyers suggested that "targeting" and "minimization" procedures erase the harm that surveillance causes to Fourth Amendment principles, though we've explained why those procedures impose inadequate limits and allow unconstitutional spying to continue.  We're also reminded of Justice Roberts' recent observation: "the Founders did not fight a revolution to gain the right to government agency protocols."

I am not quite sure whether I got what is conveyed here, but it seems to amount to
yet another set of lawyerly redefinitions of terms that in their ordinary meanings oppose what the lawyers want to say: Such redefinitions are lies. You cannot redefine a word - for the purposes of legal argument - so that it says what you mean if your redefinition contradicts or is not supported by the meaning it has according to accepted good dictionaries. What you are proposing are simply - very dishonest and dirty - lies and falsehoods that contradict accepted usage.

As to "the harm that surveillance causes to Fourth Amendment principles": This is an example of the lawyers' redefinitions of terms. For there is no "harm" done to "principles": The Fourth Amendment forbids the collection of everyone's data as if that were normal. [4] It is not normal, it is not democratic, it is not legal, and it ought to be stopped.

This is a constitutional problem. Quite apart from the bait and switch opportunities it creates for the FBI, it's like saying it's OK for school officials to set up a drug testing program for non-law enforcement purposes, and then once it's set up, they can completely abandon that purpose and start testing students to simply to put them in jail. Or that the government can set up a program to test pregnant women for drugs with a goal to get them into treatment, but also hand the information over to the police and use the threat of prosecution as additional leverage.

Actually, I don't know whether this is a constitutional problem. I do not think the American Constitution is a holy writ, and it could be improved and extended, but
no constitution is safe from governmental or lawyerly abuse, and it seems to me more a case where the government wants to do things that the constitution - on any fair reading - forbids. And then they start questioning the constitution rather than their unconstitutional plans. [4]

Here is the last bit that I will quote:

The Supreme Court rejected the latter scenario as unconstitutional in Ferguson v. City of Charleston in 2001. Other Supreme Court cases make clear that even holistic, programmatic assessments of Fourth Amendment "reasonableness" -- like the one the FISC engages in here -- must take into account the invasiveness of these programs. Searching vast databases containing the full content of emails and every website visited by nonsuspect Americans without a warrant is about as invasive as it gets.

This FISC decision is flawed for all of these reasons. But we won't get a chance to present those flaws to the court of appeals, much less the US Supreme Court, because in cases before the secret surveillance court only the government, not the amicus (or those of us whose communications are swept up in these massive programs) is allowed to appeal.

I have two observations.

First, it is quite true that "
[s]earching vast databases containing the full content of emails and every website visited by nonsuspect Americans without a warrant is about as invasive as it gets"; it is quite true this happens; and it is quite true that it is completely anti-democratic and extremely authoritarian (and doesn't work against terrorists either, unless these are extremely naive).

And second, a secret surveillance "court" where only the government (and not its victims) is allowed to appeal is not a real legal court (that is open, and certainly if it concerns everybody's privacy) but is in fact a hardly legal means of making the government get what it wants, while pretending it is acting "in the name of the law".

If so, that law is very undemocratic.

--------------------------
Notes
[1] It is less certain because I do not know how much - for example - the Russians or the Chinese spy. And they certainly spy. Two reasons why they may spy less than the Americans: First, the Americans have invested a very great amount of money into spying. This might have been done by the Russians and the Chinese, but it is a bit less likely. For one thing, I think it is considerably more likely that I am being traced by some American, English or Dutch secret service than by a Russian one. (But I might be mistaken.) Second, the Americans and the English are much better placed to have secret access to most of the cables along which data is sent these days.

But I agree neither argument is conclusive.

[2] I am very sorry, but these Amsterdam bureaucrats were fascists and complete moral degenerates. I am saying this now because my dole money doesn't come anymore from Amsterdam, since I am pensioned, and I probably will say a lot more about Dutch fascism and Dutch narco-nazis, because I still want the money to be able to leave this deeply degenerate country, and I think the Amsterdam sado-fascistic narco-nazis owe that me.
 
As to "fascism":

I
have been called a fascist (and a dirty fascist) (at least) many dozens of times by the members of the ASVA, over the course of 12 years, and absolutely no one cared. (The reasons? I was a proponent of truth and science, in a university (!).)

When I say that Amsterdam bureaucrats are fascists I compare them with my grandfather, who was murdered in a German concentration camp, where he was locked up, in his sixties, as "a political terrorist", because he resisted the Nazis; and I refer to my father, who survived 3 years, 9 months and 15 days of imprisonment in four German concentration camps, where he was also locked up as
"a political terrorist", because he resisted the Nazis. He also was knighted after the war, as one of the only two communists who were ever knighted in Holland.

I have been left for four years to cope with the problems caused by two murderous illegal drugsdealers that were personally allowed by personal permission of the mayor to deal illegal drugs from the bottom floor of the house where I lived; I have been threatened five times with murder by them, but the Amsterdam City Police refused four years long to lift a finger for me, even when the drugdealers were arrested with 2 kiloos of heroine and 1 kilo of cocaine; I have been gassed by them, and I survived only (after being unconscious for several hours) because the house was a dump; I had very insufficient sleep for four years; and my health has been much worse than it was prior to 1988 ever since, that is for 28 years.

So yes, I am owed a lot of money by the City of Amsterdam, that very much rather protected illegal murderous drugsdealers than protect me, my health, my sleep or the rights I have according to Dutch laws.

[3] You may question my use of the term "fascist". I have explained it in the crisis index and in the previous note, with reference to the very serious problems that I barely survived in Amsterdam. As far as the Americans are concerned: I am judging by the evidence I have read (see the crisis index), which suggested to me that since Bush Jr was awarded the presidency - that he could not win - by the Supreme Court, there has been a very strong tendency to use methods - universal surveillance, secret courts, orders not to speak with anybody if one gets sent to court by parts of the government, and much more - that I strongly associate with fascism, for good historical reasons also.

And in case you object to my use of "fascist" etc. when applied to a few Americans: Read the term along lines like Orwell proposed, in 1945: "I hate and despise you".

[4] I think this is a fair assessment of mine, but I am not a lawyer. And I also think that the Fourth Amendment is OK as it stands:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This is clearly about privacy - "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" - and clearly limits the conditions under which this privacy may be broken: Only "upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized".

One might protest against "papers" but clearly - I would say - this also covers things one writes on a computer, and who objects to that must also be willing to maintain
that one's privacy is violated when the envelope that covers one's letters is broken by someone unintended, but that one's privacy is not violated when the text of one's letters is stolen by some secret service.

To me, that is plainly false.


       home - index - summaries - mail