
Dianne Feinstein's reply to constituents' opposition to EARN IT act - hkmurakami
https://pastebin.com/CYbtjtb8
======
jamilbk
Sigh, another feel-good law being proposed with no consideration for second or
third order effects.

Tech companies would be required to police their systems for this data.
There’s no good automated way to do this, so an army of compliance workers
would be needed if you have a non-trivial amount of content on your platform.
For small tech companies, this would be prohibitively expensive.

Then there’s the 800lb gorilla in the room: the encryption issue. How can a
company police its content if it doesn’t know what it is? Are we really
suggesting that every end-to-end encryption technology be nuked in favor of
“saving the children?” How many children will it really save? And how many
others will it endanger in oppressive, dictatorial regimes? Not to mention the
myriad other criminals seeking to exploit unencrypted and non-private
technologies?

This is akin to vehicle manufacturers being required to monitor the audio of
vehicle occupants at all times in case a rape occurs.

“Think of the children.” This is one of the oldest tricks in the book. It’s
disgusting.

I’m counting the days until Feinstein leaves office. EARN IT causes more harm
than good.

~~~
ohazi
> Are we really suggesting that every end-to-end encryption technology be
> nuked in favor of “saving the children?”

Yes. Their _goal_ is to nuke encryption. The children are a red herring. This
is solely about government power.

~~~
m0llusk
No. Their goal is to protect the children. They don't understand technology
and do not care how many enterprises are destroyed by their clumsy fumbling.
Stop trying to reframe stupidity as conspiracy.

~~~
notmarkus
"Conspiracy" makes it sound like the US government hasn't been building the
largest spying apparatus in history over the past 2 decades. Reality says
otherwise.

~~~
zl10q2
And Feinstein has always been on the side of surveillance, except of course
when _she_ is affected:

[https://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/13/politics/feinstein-cia-
sn...](https://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/13/politics/feinstein-cia-snooping-
hypocrisy/index.html)

------
jjk166
> I was deeply disturbed by recent reporting by The New York Times about the
> nearly 70 million online photos and videos of child sexual abuse that were
> reported by technology companies last year.

If the tech companies are reporting 70 million photos and videos, doesn't that
mean current measures are already effective at finding and reporting massive
quantities of child sexual abuse content? It's like complaining about
firefighters putting out too many fires - even if there is some real problem
causing an excessive amount of fires to start, there's no reason to interfere
with the firefighters successfully combatting the problem.

It is quite frightening that the bill's prominent supporters won't list even a
single problem with the current system that they hope their new "best
practices" would rectify.

~~~
solidsnack9000
It's quite troubling, too, that the senator does not provide a baseline
against which to assess the 70 million figure. How many of the pictures are
duplicates or substantially duplicates? What is the report actually counting?
How does that translate to number of victims? How many more images does the
senator believe that the EARN IT act will uncover?

The senator quoted the 70 million figure not to inform us, but to shock us and
make us suspend judgement. It shouldn't be the norm for senators to respond
without carefully sourced statistics, and it shouldn't be the norm for them to
present a single statistic without a baseline or without something to compare
it against, leaving it to our imagination, what the effect of their policies
will be or what the scope of the issue is.

~~~
kyledrake
As someone that's had to submit CP reports to NCMEC before (very rarely
fortunately), I find that 70 million figure to be pretty strange and suspect.
If you consider that Facebook has 2.45 billion active users, if it was one
report per person it would represent 3% of Facebook's entire user base. I'm
assuming there's some sort of automation in this, and perhaps a lot of
duplicates (but MS PhotoDNA is supposed to catch this) or false reports. I
wouldn't take that number at face value, it feels very off from my experience.

~~~
craftinator
It is a bit suspect, likely for the reasons you suggest. I can imagine that
large caches of CP media does get transferred some portion of the time, which
might be inflating the numbers.

------
CarVac
I got a very similar reply from Bob Menendez.

>Thank you for contacting me to express your concern for the Eliminating
Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies (EARN IT) Act. Your
opinion is very important to me, and I appreciate the opportunity to respond
to you.

The EARN IT Act would amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to
require companies to “earn” their liability protection for violations of laws
related to the trafficking of child sexual abuse material. The EARN IT Act
lays out best practices for companies to maintain immunity from child sexual
abuse material statutes and bolsters enforcement if companies choose not to
comply with the practices. The companies would not lose Section 230
protections for other content like defamation and threats.

> As someone concerned about internet freedom, you will be pleased to know
> that I am an original cosponsor of the Save the Internet Act. This bill
> would remand the Commission back to its February 2015 ruling protecting and
> promoting an open internet and make the net neutrality permanent. This bill
> would also prevent the Federal Communications Commission from reissuing any
> rulings or orders unless specifically authorized by law.

> I also voted for S. J. Res. 52, a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution
> which would reverse the December 14, 2017 vote by the Federal Communications
> Commission to repeal the Open Internet Order of 2015. The resolution, which
> I cosponsored, passed the Senate on May 16, 2018. In addition to
> cosponsoring the CRA, I cosigned a letter to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai opposing
> the FCC’s vote to eliminate net neutrality. Access to information and open
> communications are critical to maintaining democratic internet practices,
> supporting small businesses, and protecting consumers. The EARN IT Act was
> introduced in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and although I am not a member
> of this Committee, please know that I will keep your views in mind in the
> future.

~~~
jamilbk
Wow. So they can’t even take the time to write their own thoughtful reply to
their constituents on heated issues? They simply plagiarize the work of others
or pay some intern to do it?

How insulting.

What the heck is wrong with these politicians? Do they think their office is
simply a place where they can “play Game of Thrones” and sit back and smirk?

And we wonder why Americans band together in excitement for non-career-
politician presidential candidates like Yang and Trump.

------
zmmmmm
As far as form letters go it's not too bad ... but I thought this was
surprisingly frank and undermined any note of reason she was trying to strike:

> Media reports, however, make it clear that ....

So she admits they had no basis for these laws other than some news articles?
It seems crazy they'd shift fundamental aspects of how the internet works with
no more basis than some media reports.

~~~
dmurray
It reads to me like "thanks, but fuck off."

~~~
mceachen
Having received the same letter from DF a couple weeks ago, this is exactly
how I took it as well.

Except maybe s/but/and/

------
echelon
Is this horrid bill going to pass? Do we stand any chance in getting this
canned like SOPA/PIPA, or is the coronavirus too big of a distraction?

Shame on these folks for using this crisis to shove this into our legal
framework. This is tyranny.

------
einpoklum
Think of the children! ...

Don't let them grow up in a police state where the government spies on their
conversations and whereabouts, forever.

On the other hand, _do_ enact universal healthcare in the US, so that they get
decent medical care when they're sick. But as we all know - Mrs. Feinstein is
definitely _against_ that.

~~~
ianai
Where do you get that she’s against universal healthcare? Googles turning up
that she supports universal healthcare.

~~~
einpoklum
Well, she's not proposed a bill, and not supported Sanders' Medicare for All
bill which is the current leading proposal for universal health care in the
US. And - she gaslights about it, see:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbq6t7bg2ro](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbq6t7bg2ro)

To explain why I claim she's gaslighting, note that universal health care in
Capitalist societies has basically two options:

1\. Government insurance, non-governmental provision 2\. No insurance,
government provision

US Medicare is option (1.), US veterans' healthcare as well as UK national
health service is option (2.) and is quite viable. Option (3.) is only for
non-Capitalist economies. In the clip, Feinstein gaslights by pretending
Medicare for All is (2.) rather than (1.) and declaring opposition to (2.)

Finally, several days later, health insurance industry lobbyists organized a
fundraiser for Feinstein, as mentioned here:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFZxVixSjDc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFZxVixSjDc)

------
pfortuny
Totally void of content. Think of the children sweetness, no proper legal,
civil or even political reasoning.

Just: hey, you must agree if you are not a pedophile.

~~~
neltnerb
If there were content then there would be points to argue against.

This is the same vein of response I'd get from Obama, or really any politician
who has every word they say picked apart by a dozen staffers trying to make
sure the decision that's already been made stays made while not saying
anything that will cause blowback.

Mild, uninformative, intentionally misunderstanding the problem.

------
nichohel
Summary: FOR THE CHILDREN!!!

------
paypalcust83
Orwellian.

Similar "but the children" fallacious legislation BS took down Craigslist's
personals section.

This makes encrypted, zero-knowledge customer data an insurance liability.

Porn is next. And then the regulation of abortion and consensual sex between
adults. Oh wait, the first is already happening.

Next will be individual social media licensure, individual journalism
licensure, and internet licensure... "it's a privilege, not a right" they will
say.

Watch when the wealthy elites begin to lose their grip on power from below,
the restrictions on freedoms, eliminations of rights, and sanctioning of more
abuse and violence against dissidents will accelerate markedly. If the people
cede one inch, they will take a mile and never give it back without a
revolution.

------
darawk
Dianne Feinstein is the absolute worst, especially on these issues, but also
many others. I don't know how she keeps getting elected. Here's a quick
rundown:

Feinstein on internet freedom and free speech:

* Feinstein was the original Democratic co-sponsor of a bill to extend the USA PATRIOT Act.

* In 2012, Feinstein voted for the extension of the Patriot Act and the FISA provisions.[41]

* On May 12, 2011, Feinstein co-sponsored PIPA.

* Following her 2012 vote to extend the Patriot Act and the FISA provisions,[41] and after the 2013 mass surveillance disclosures involving the National Security Agency (NSA), Feinstein promoted and supported measures to continue the information collection programs

* She was the main Democratic sponsor of the failed 2006 constitutional Flag Desecration Amendment.[43]

* In 2010, Feinstein voted in favor of unilateral US censorship of the Internet by voting in favor of COICA

* In 2013, Feinstein called for the immediate extradition and arrest of Edward Snowden

* Feinstein has supported Hollywood and the content industry when it has come into conflict with technology and fair use on intellectual property issues. In 2006, she co-sponsored the "PERFORM Act", or the "Platform Equality and Remedies for Rights Holders in Music Act of 2006", in the Senate, which would require satellite, cable and internet broadcasters to incorporate digital rights management technologies into their transmission

Feinstein on marijuana:

* Feinstein has a "C-" rating from NORML for her voting history regarding cannabis-related causes. She considers marijuana a "gateway drug", and has opposed the legalization of medical marijuana without further research

* Feinstein voted in support of legislation to override a Department of Veterans Affairs' prohibition on allowing doctors to recommend cannabis to veterans in states that sanction its use as a medicine.

Supporting pork-barrel farm subsidies for her constituents:

* In March 2019, Feinstein was one of thirty-eight senators to sign a letter to United States Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue warning that dairy farmers "have continued to face market instability and are struggling to survive the fourth year of sustained low prices" and urging his department to "strongly encourage these farmers to consider the Dairy Margin Coverage program.

Not understanding how markets work:

* In May 2011, Feinstein was one of seventeen senators to sign a letter to Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chairman Gary Gensler requesting a regulatory crackdown on speculative Wall Street trading in oil contracts, asserting that they had entered "a time of economic emergency for many American families" while noting that the average retail price of regular grade gasoline was $3.95 nationwide. The senators requested that the CFTC adopt speculation limits in regard to markets where contracts for future delivery of oil are traded

Knowingly employing Chinese spies:

* On July 27, 2018, reports surfaced that a Chinese staff member who worked as Feinstein's personal driver, gofer and liaison to the Asian-American community for 20 years, was caught reporting to China's Ministry of State Security.[95][96] According to the reports, Feinstein was contacted by the FBI five years ago warning her about the suspected employee. The employee was later interviewed by authorities and forced to retire by Feinstein.[97] No criminal charges were filed against the individual.[95]

Sourced from:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianne_Feinstein#Political_pos...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianne_Feinstein#Political_positions)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Dianne_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Dianne_Feinstein)

Please stop electing this woman.

~~~
harry8
Gerry Mander.

You can't talk about any of these individual problems without talking about
how the corruption of democracy that is the Gerry Mander and is the norm on
both sides of the aisle.

I have no idea about Feinstein but everything said here is consistent with the
actions of a person who can only lose office through criminal prosecution. And
is being blackmailed by those who have the surveillance data.

Mad conspiracy theory. Zero evidence for it. As insane as the things Assange
said before Snowden showed he was absolutely right.

By the way. I don't /like/ Assange any more than the editor of the New York
Times or any other public figure. I have a lot of trouble swallowing the rape
story. I'd that normal nowadays or people still hate him because he's as
Russian as Donald or something?

~~~
neltnerb
She's a senator, so gerrymandering is not the problem. It's a statewide
election without districts.

The problem is that she has a (D) after her name in CA and that's all it takes
to get elected. She did some good things in the 80s, apparently, and has been
riding on that since then because my entire adult life she's been on the wrong
side of just about every big vote.

~~~
m0llusk
It is more complex than that. People who actually vote consistently tend to be
older. Many such have strong feelings for Dianne because she was there when it
happened and many old voters associate her with their feelings when they heard
that they had lost Moscone and Milk together in a senseless freak out that
disrupted their local government. This is part of why she and her followers
keep trying to do to guns what we did to drugs.

Wanting to rebel for justice is great, but daring to trivialize the past will
tend to trip you up. If the present situation teaches us anything is that
morons can be formidable foes.

~~~
neltnerb
Yes, I am aware of the loyalty older voters have to her and why. I wish they
would pay attention to what the impact of her actual decisions are in the
present, but I do get it.

------
LatteLazy
Thank you for your letter. I haven't read it and won't be answering any of
your questions or concerns. Here is some bs from a pre approved press release
about how great I am and why this is important. You are important to me, which
is why I haven't read this and won't be reading it, now be quite while the
adults make decisions that will wreck your life.

------
alexfromapex
There should be an age cut off where politicians aren’t allowed to create
Internet legislation.

~~~
Rebelgecko
She's not like this because of her age. It's because she leans more towards
the authoritarian side of things. That's not a new position for her, it goes
back decades. Hell, she voted in favor of adding a "disrespecting the flag"
exemption to the 1st Amendment

~~~
mirimir
Yes, she's authoritarian. She supported the Clipper Chip, along with Al Gore.
Which is one of the reasons why he lost to Bush.

------
0_gravitas
A politician spouting empty words, imagine that.

------
jackjeff
I’m amazed by _how_ vague this law is. Basically it all depends on what the
National Commission decides later on. It could be as simple as a checkbox or
some kind of crazy filter database thing... who knows... no doubt it’ll keep
changing and be a good opportunity to make money for some.

Also what are companies going to do once they find such material? Just remove
it from their platform and sweep it under the carpet?

------
deftturtle
I emailed her in response to the Snowden revelations back in 2013. I noticed
some similarities in her format. Here's what she emailed back:

\------

Dear Cale:

I received your communication indicating your concerns about the two National
Security Agency programs that have been in the news recently. I appreciate
that you took the time to write on this important issue and welcome the
opportunity to respond.

First, I understand your concerns and want to point out that by law, the
government cannot listen to an American's telephone calls or read their emails
without a court warrant issued upon a showing of probable cause. The programs
that were recently disclosed have to do with information about phone calls –
the kind of information that you might find on a telephone bill – in one case,
and the internet communications (such as email) of non-Americans outside the
United States in the other case. Both programs are subject to checks and
balances, and oversight by the Executive Branch, the Congress, and the
Judiciary.

As Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I can tell you that I
believe the oversight we have conducted is strong and effective and I am doing
my level best to get more information declassified. Please know that it is
equally frustrating to me, as it is to you, that I cannot provide more detail
on the value these programs provide and the strict limitations placed on how
this information is used. I take serious my responsibility to make sure
intelligence programs are effective, but I work equally hard to ensure that
intelligence activities strictly comply with the Constitution and our laws and
protect Americans' privacy rights.

These surveillance programs have proven to be very effective in identifying
terrorists, their activities, and those associated with terrorist plots, and
in allowing the Intelligence Community and the Federal Bureau of Investigation
to prevent numerous terrorist attacks. More information on this should be
forthcoming.

· On June 18, 2003, the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA)
testified to the House Intelligence Committee that there have been "over 50
potential terrorist events" that these programs helped prevent.

· While the specific uses of these surveillance programs remain largely
classified, I have reviewed the classified testimony and reports from the
Executive Branch that describe in detail how this surveillance has stopped
attacks.

· Two examples where these surveillance programs were used to prevent
terrorist attacks were: (1) the attempted bombing of the New York City subway
system in September 2009 by Najibullah Zazi and his co-conspirators; and (2)
the attempted attack on a Danish newspaper that published cartoons of the
Prophet Mohammed in October 2009 by U.S. citizen David Headley and his
associates.

· Regarding the planned bombing of the New York City subway system, the NSA
has determined that in early September of 2009, while monitoring the
activities of Al Qaeda terrorists in Pakistan, NSA noted contact from an
individual in the U.S. that the FBI subsequently identified as Colorado-based
Najibullah Zazi. The U.S. Intelligence Community, including the FBI and NSA,
worked in concert to determine his relationship with Al Qaeda, as well as
identify any foreign or domestic terrorist links. The FBI tracked Zazi as he
traveled to New York to meet with co-conspirators, where they were planning to
conduct a terrorist attack using hydrogen peroxide bombs placed in backpacks.
Zazi and his co-conspirators were subsequently arrested. Zazi eventually
pleaded guilty to conspiring to bomb the NYC subway system.

· Regarding terrorist David Headley, he was also involved in the planning and
reconnaissance of the 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India that killed 166
people, including six Americans. According to NSA, in October 2009, Headley, a
Chicago businessman and dual U.S. and Pakistani citizen, was arrested by the
FBI as he tried to depart from Chicago O'Hare airport on a trip to Europe.
Headley was charged with material support to terrorism based on his
involvement in the planning and reconnaissance of the hotel attack in Mumbai
2008. At the time of his arrest, Headley and his colleagues were plotting to
attack the Danish newspaper that published the unflattering cartoons of the
Prophet Mohammed, at the behest of Al Qaeda.

Not only has Congress been briefed on these programs, but laws passed and
enacted since 9/11 specifically authorize them. The surveillance programs are
authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which itself
was enacted by Congress in 1978 to establish the legal structure to carry out
these programs, but also to prevent government abuses, such as surveillance of
Americans without approval from the federal courts. The Act authorizes the
government to gather communications and other information for foreign
intelligence purposes. It also establishes privacy protections, oversight
mechanisms (including court review), and other restrictions to protect privacy
rights of Americans.

The laws that have established and reauthorized these programs since 9/11 have
passed by mostly overwhelming margins. For example, the phone call business
record program was reauthorized most recently on May 26, 2011 by a vote of
72-23 in the Senate and 250-153 in the House. The internet communications
program was reauthorized most recently on December 30, 2012 by a vote of 73-22
in the Senate and 301-118 in the House.

You may be interested to know that the Senate Intelligence Committee will be
proposing changes to these programs to ensure transparency and to make public
additional facts. Attached to this letter is an opinion piece
([http://tinyurl.com/NSA-OpEd](http://tinyurl.com/NSA-OpEd)) I authored in the
Washington Post on July 30, 2013 that further highlights our proposed changes.
While I very much regret the disclosure of classified information in a way
that will damage our ability to identify and stop terrorist activity, I
believe it is important to ensure that the public record now available on
these programs is accurate and provided with the proper context.

Again, thank you for contacting me with your concerns and comments. I
appreciate knowing your views and hope you continue to inform me of issues
that matter to you. If you have any additional questions or concerns, please
do not hesitate to contact my office in Washington, D.C. at (202) 224-3841.

Sincerely yours,

Dianne Feinstein United States Senator

~~~
wyxuan
An intern definitely wrote that. Source-was an intern for a public official at
one point

~~~
bb2018
Not exactly a scandal there...I would hope that a congressional staffer would
handle all mass communications with constituents.

------
pmiller2
Somebody needs to primary her.

~~~
masonic
She's been the _senior Senator_ from the USA's _largest state_ for over _27
years_. How many major legislative accomplishments has she achieved?

Some may name the Desert Protection Act, until one looks closely at the
specifics -- it was primarily a vehicle for pork and to financially benefit
her family.

Some may name the "assault weapons" ban elements of the 1994 Crime Bill, but
that lapsed 15+ years ago, and its failure to accomplish its stated goals was
so pronounced that even _she_ hasn't moved it again.

Anything else? For 27 years in what should be the most prominent seat in the
Senate?

~~~
einpoklum
She's secured fantastic profits for her donors. Doesn't that count for
something?

~~~
masonic
I was shocked to read that according to the source I read (since forgotten, it
was a study of net worth changes for US legislators since 1990),
Feinstein/Blum net worth actually went _down_ a touch since 1993, perhaps even
in nominal dollars ( _not_ counting inflation).

~~~
einpoklum
I haven't looked into that. However - she's in her 80s. Look at the net worth
of her children, grandchildren and other family members.

------
fulafel
What would happen to non-US based platforms? Could this lead to offshoring of
social media or does the bill cover this case somehow?

------
sitkack
The horseshoe theory comes full circle as both the left and the right despise
her.

------
Simulacra
FYI: This was carefully written by a professional legislative correspondent.

------
anonymousiam
Obligatory Franklin quote: “Those who would give up essential liberty to
purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

~~~
wahern
FWIW, the liberty Franklin was speaking of was the liberty of Pennsylvania to
tax land, specifically the Penn family's lands. The Penn family was offering
to make a one-time contribution to Pennsylvania's military defense in exchange
for Pennsylvania forswearing the power to tax them.

The point was that the state should jealously guard its powers so that it has
the flexibility to enact policies that secure the long-term safety and welfare
of its citizens, even if that comes at the _literal_ expense of some, such as
the Penn family.

~~~
nichohel
This is the view advanced by Benjamin Wittes, made popular in a recent NPR
piece which you may have heard or read. I am not convinced it is right. Have
you read the rebuttal by David Brick, currently the first comment on
[https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/14/how-the-world-butchered-
be...](https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/14/how-the-world-butchered-benjamin-
franklins-quote-on-liberty-vs-security/) ?

The entire rebuttal is a bit long to repost, but essentially, Brick says
Wittes is taking that statement of Franklin's as applying to the entirety of
his letter when in fact "[t]he real context of the quote is actually a very
small portion of that letter in which the authors are discussing the defensive
needs of certain 'freemen' living on the frontiers, or 'backwoods' areas of
the colony." Furthermore, Brick states that Franklin made very similar
statements elsewhere where the meaning is very clear--and in line with the
conventional pro-liberty understanding, not Wittes' pro-government-power
understanding.

I would like to see some historians argue it out.

~~~
wahern
But the usage of "Liberty" only makes sense as the liberty of self-governance
through the Assembly. As I read that paragraph, Franklin is rebutting the
hypothetical counter argument that the governor is simply doing what he must
to keep the frontiersmen safe in exigent circumstances. (I.e.
s/frontiersmen/children/\--Franklin is anticipating the "but think of the
children" deflection.) And Franklin is saying 1) at that very moment those who
want arms have been armed, 2) all the Bills the Assembly has tried to have
signed by the governor have been precisely to help for their defense, and 3)
that any frontiersman willing to give up the "Liberty" (i.e. his right to
implement policy, and particularly defense policy, through the Assembly) for
whatever additional modicum of security the governor's plan might temporarily
provide deserves neither the liberty being denied him (vicariously via the
Assembly) nor any security.

Even ignoring all the other paragraphs, in no way could the liberty imply the
frontiersmen's individual freedom (or civil rights, as we would call them).
The contended Bill doesn't encroach on the frontiersmen livelihood or
freedoms; it's a Bill to raise money for their defense (it literally says that
in the next sentence) by taxing proprietary estate holders, who are definitely
not the same people as the frontiersmen. It doesn't effect the frontiersmen
directly, except by providing for more consistent defense funding. It's a
pretty difficult piece to work through and I wouldn't claim that I fully
understand all that Franklin is arguing, but whatever he is saying there, it
can't possibly be referring to individual freedom. There's not the slightest
hint of such a connotation. Rather, whatever the precise point, it's clearly
an equivocation of the Assembly's rights with those of the People.

Yeah, he uses that phrase again years later and the arguments are different in
those contexts, but it's obviously a cool phrase. Of course he would repurpose
it to suit whatever point he's trying to make.

For others' convenience, here's the whole thing:
[https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-06-02-01...](https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-06-02-0107)

