Re: Andy Grove on Clipper

[jamiel@sybase.com (Jamie Lawrence)]

At 10:41 AM 06/16/94 -0700, Vinod Valloppillil wrote:

>        Then, the editor from Newsweek said that in any show about the "Data 
>Superhighway" the Clipper chip had to be discussed.  He then went on to 
>say (and occasionally apologizing to Gore for being blunt) how the chip 
>and the whole program were "loathed" by the industry and privacy 
>advocates.  Larry asked Groves what he thought about it and he went off 
>talking about the govt's legitimate right to tap analog media and how 
>all this chip did was to extend that right into the digital realm.  I 
>was shocked.  Even worse, Al Gore supported Andy's position and then 
>when Larry King got back to the editor, he backed off saying "well, I 
>just heard that people in the industry didn't like it." Larry asked for 
>his opinion on it as a provider of information services and he said, 
>"we just report on public opinions in our magazine and don't try to 
>take positions on the issues.

That was Vic Sussman, from US News and World Report. I didn't see the
Larry King Piece, but I have talked with Sussman before. He is very
old school journalist, and was asked what he thinks 'as a provider of
information services.' He gave the partyline, 'as a provider of information
services.' When I am asked about something 'as a small magazine publisher,'
for instance (one of the few things that gets me questioned like that
:), I respond as one. No publisher is gonna let people talk about touchy
issues in an official capacity- it isn't professional and cause _tons_ of
problems for no good reason. Yes, that can be used as a lame excuse,
but there are many times it isn't. 

Grove, on the other hand, has no place making statements like that,
unless Intel has a political science wing I haven't heard of.

>        Yuck.

I do agree with you on this.
:)
-j