[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
a chat w/ Paul Strassman about his remailer article
Now I have a firmer grasp on the dynamics of escalation. ;)
A couple of notes. (1) The people Mr. Strassman CCed in his first
response remained CCed throughout; one of them is his co-author, William
Marlow (Senior Vice President, Science Applications International
Corporation [SAIC]). (2) He hasn't responded to my last mail, and probably
won't, at least in private; obviously, he's free to respond to it on
Cypherpunks. (3) I find his claims to understand and properly represent the
arguments for remailers to be, er, lacking: claims like "remailing
capabilities are operated [...] as a public service, almost always at no
charge because it costs so little to set one up," the absence of the
standard penet-type arguments--about support-group discussion re sexual
abuse etc.--speak for themselves, imo.
Anyway:
>To: [email protected] (Paul A. Strassmann)
>From: [email protected] (t byfield)
>Subject: Re: your article on remailers
>
>Greetings.
> Your article on remailers <http://www.strassmann.com/pubs/
>anon-remail.html> was fascinating.
> The "connection" you draw between disease and techniques of
>anonymity is arbitrary and tendentious: in place of a careful, sustained
>analysis of anonymous remailers _as such_, your article relies on a
>bizarre rhetorical substitution of disease for anonymity--"Information
>terrorism poses a threat; anonymity prevents punishment; the fact that
>legislative and policy bodies aren't dealing with the issue reminds me of
>the history of public medicine; therefore anonymity is a disease like
>AIDS; Russian criminals are using remailers; this is how remailers
>work..." This isn't an argument--it's a hodgepodge of free-associations
>and very peculiar allegations. What evidence is there that "the Russian
>(ex-KGB) criminal element" (whatever that is) constitutes a *statistically
>significant* segment of remailer-users? If they aren't statisticaly
>significant, why mention them? In the absence of any specific evidence, I
>can only assume that this claim is pure fantasy--like the confusing
>association between "AIDS" and "terrorism." Certainly, both are bad for
>society, but so are many other things--littering, starvation, and poor
>workmanship.
> If you plan to develop your work on remailers further and present
>it to governmental agencies and NGOs, please take the time to *understand*
>the arguments of remailer advocates, rather than merely quoting them at
>length. You'll be doing yourself a favor--because, really, the only
>sections of your article that seem to make much sense are the quotations
>from people who develop and maintain remailers.
>
>Ted Byfield
<address>
-----------------------------
>X-Sender: [email protected]
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 10:31:10 -0500
>To: [email protected] (t byfield)
>From: [email protected] (Paul A. Strassmann)
>Subject: Re: your article on remailers
>Cc: "William Marlow" <[email protected]>,
> "Tim Leshan" <[email protected]>,
> BRIAN KAHIN <[email protected]>
>
> Dear Mr. Byfield:
>
>Thanks for your comments about our remailer paper. I believe a few points
>are in order in response to your observations:
>
>1. It does not seem that you have finished reading the paper. There is a
>long section in the end captioned <Why Remailers?> which summarizes a wide
>spectrum of opinions and beliefs of those who develop and offer remailer
>services. I am satisfied that I have represented fairly the views of those
>who see in remailers the defense of privacy and civil liberties. I also
>conclude that remailers are here to stay.
>
>2. With regard to the evidence of that remailers are used by the criminal
>element, and particularly by the Russian (ex-KGB), I am satisfied with the
>evidence I have seen so far. As court proceedings become unsealed, everyone
>will have an opportunity to examine that evidence. Meanwhile, you may wish
>to browse for recent stories with the keywords <Citicorp> and <Cybercrime>
>for such disclosures.
>
>3. In your letter you employ a technique which is not appropriate for the
>conduct of a civilized discourse. You start by attributing to me
>statements which I did not make. Then, you proceed to debunk them. Let me
>illustrate:
>
>I did not use the expression "statistically significant" in describing the
>use of remailers by the criminal element. Therefore, your argument "...if
>they aren't statistically significant why mention them?" is both false as
>well as logically inconsistent.
>
>Your debating style shows similar flaws by avoiding facts and arguing your
>own constructs of what you attribute as my views. It is only because of the
>importance of this subject matter that I have decided to respond to your
>"flame".
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Paul Strassmann
<full quote of my email omitted>
---------------------------------------------
>To: [email protected] (Paul A. Strassmann)
>From: [email protected] (t byfield)
>Subject: Re: your article on remailers
>
>At 10:31 AM 2/7/96, Paul A. Strassmann wrote:
>
>Mr. Strassmann--
> Since you may not wish to pursue any further discussion with
>someone you don't know, I'll cut to the chase: may I submit your response
>(unabridged) to the Cypherpunks mailing list? I notice that you've CCed my
>mail to three people unknown to me without my permission. (Hi,
>everyone...)
> Here are a few further remarks, if you're interested; I hope you are.
>I've reproduced your remarks out of their original order for purposes of
>brevity.
>
>>3. In your letter you employ a technique which is not appropriate for the
>>conduct of a civilized discourse. You start by attributing to me
>>statements which I did not make. Then, you proceed to debunk them. Let me
>>illustrate:
>
> You are, I trust, familiar with the phenomenon commonly called
>"asking a question"? That is what I did when I asked you whether Russian
>criminal elements constitute a statistically significant segment of
>remailer users: I asked you a question. This process can sometimes be
>confusing--for example, when the criteria that questioner and questionee
>judge to be important differ. I feel that, in matters of public policy,
>relative numbers are important: thus, if tens or hundreds of thousands of
>people use remailers for benign purposes while only a handful of Russian
>criminals do so for nefarious purposes, then public policy decisions on
>remailers should not be founded primarily on the latter fact. By analogy,
>it seems likely that someone, somewhere, has taught a monkey to drive a
>car--there might even be a documented instance of it; should we then take
>this into consideration in debating national automotive policy? After all,
>if it weren't illegalized, the chaos that could be caused by pet
>chimpanzees tooling around on public roads can't be understated...
> Obviously, you're free to differ on the subject of relative
>numbers and their bearing on policy, just as you're free to persevere
>under the belief that a question can be "false."
> I can't, however, resist pointing out that asking c[are]fully
>worded questions that conform to established scientific criteria is
>considered "appropriate for the conduct of a civilized discourse." Again,
>you're free to disagree, of course. [brackets in 1st line = spelling
>correction]
>
>>2. With regard to the evidence of that remailers are used by the criminal
>>element, and particularly by the Russian (ex-KGB), I am satisfied with the
>>evidence I have seen so far. As court proceedings become unsealed, everyone
>>will have an opportunity to examine that evidence. Meanwhile, you may wish
>>to browse for recent stories with the keywords <Citicorp> and <Cybercrime>
>>for such disclosures.
>
> "If you knew what I knew" arguments have needlessly become a
>staple of the national security establishment; but in all but the rarest
>instances are they a valid basis for policy decisions. I understand full
>well that the Russian "mafia" and former apparatchiks throughout the
>former Soviet bloc are serious problems that we ignore only at our peril;
>and, also, that invoking them increases one's chance of funding in the
>security establishment. But I also understand that certain segments of the
>USG would ultimately be better off distinguishing between its citizenry
>and the Russian mob, rather than continually invoking the latter in
>advocating legislation that pertains primarily to the former.
>
> In any case, I cannot wish you well in your endeavors in this
>regard, since I disagree with most of what you say; I can, however, wish
>you well in other regards, and I do.
> Please take a moment to answer my original question regarding the
>Cypherpunks mailing list.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ted Byfield
<address>
-----------------------------
>X-Sender: [email protected]
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 22:00:05 -0500
>To: [email protected] (t byfield)
>From: [email protected] (Paul A. Strassmann)
>Subject: Re: your article on remailers
>Cc: "William Marlow" <[email protected]>,
> "Tim Leshan" <[email protected]>,
> BRIAN KAHIN <[email protected]>
>
>I have no problem with your posting my messages. Thanks for asking except
>you should do so only after you include the text of all messages, including
>this one.
>
>You have totally misunderstood my response to your points about the
>relevance of whether ex-KGB criminals ( or monkeys) are a statistically
>significant number. The problem with your communications has been that you
>have continued to disregard my conclusions where I stated that anonymous
>remailers are here to stay for good reasons. Whether the number of abusers
>is or is not statistically significant has therefore no bearing on our
>exchanges. For that reason I did not read your text at all as "asking a
>question", but as your own assertion. This makes it unacceptable as an
>argument.
>
>I disagree with your assertion that you have "...asked a carefully worded
> questions that conform to established scientific criteria." My experience
> as editor of several scientific journals prevents me from acknowledging
> your messages as conforming to any scientific criteria. You have
> selectively picked arguments from the front of my paper, while totally
> disregarding what I said at the end. What you have is not scientific, but
> extractions to support your arguments.
>
>You are using inference (such as "chance of funding the security
>establishment", "advocating legislation" etc.) for attributing to me what
>you see as reprehensible views. You do that by saying that I have used the
>"if you knew what I knew" arguments as a cover. Again, you are exhibiting a
>debating technique where you assign to me a position I have not taken and
>then proceed to argue against it.
>
>Let me repeat again, your allegation that I have not taken into
>consideration the arguments of remailer advocates is not only false but
>totally misleading. If you would bother to read the entire paper, you
>would find that the views or remailer advocates are not only represented,
>but found to be of sufficient weight and importance to warrant my
>conclusion that anonymous remailers are here to stay. I also say that in a
>democratic society it "...becomes politically unacceptable to designate
>remailers as a potential source of criminal actions. Such absolute
>prohibitions would never pass through a legislative process in a free
>society."
>
>If you are looking for some totalitarian monster, you better look somewhere
>else to vent your apprehensions.
>
>Paul
<full quote of my second message omitted>
------------------------------------------
>To: [email protected] (Paul A. Strassmann)
>From: [email protected] (t byfield)
>Subject: Re: your article on remailers
>
>>You have totally misunderstood my response to your points about the
>>relevance of whether ex-KGB criminals ( or monkeys) are a statistically
>>significant number. The problem with your communications has been that you
>>have continued to disregard my conclusions where I stated that anonymous
>>remailers are here to stay for good reasons. Whether the number of abusers
>>is or is not statistically significant has therefore no bearing on our
>>exchanges. For that reason I did not read your text at all as "asking a
>>question", but as your own assertion. This makes it unacceptable as an
>>argument.
>
> You seem quite adamant that your repeated assertion that
>"remailers are here to stay" somehow serves to stave off any criticism (or
>at least any criticism from your struly) of your article. I read your
>article in its entirety and understood it quite well, and I agree with
>*some* of it--for example, with your conclusion that remailers are here to
>stay. I could just as easily read some lngthy tome full of rubbish whose
>conclusion is that "stuff exists" and agree with its conclusion while
>remaining skeptical about the bulk of the book.
> I would submit to you that your article would be much improved if
>you edited out this pathological-biological metaphor.
>
>>I disagree with your assertion that you have "...asked a carefully worded
>> questions that conform to established scientific criteria." My experience
>> as editor of several scientific journals prevents me from acknowledging
>> your messages as conforming to any scientific criteria. You have
>> selectively picked arguments from the front of my paper, while totally
>> disregarding what I said at the end. What you have is not scientific, but
>> extractions to support your arguments.
>
> Of course I've selectively picked arguments from your paper--I
>even addressed some from the *middle*! (As for the end, see my remarks
>above.) Unfortunately, try as you might, my remarks aren't really what's
>at issue here. You published an article that made extensive use of dubious
>metaphor and made unsubstantiated allegations that, even if they were
>substantiated, are of doubtful significance; when I pointed out that this
>method of argumentation is generally inappropriate for a democratic
>society, you redouble your efforts to assess my reading comprehension as
>low and my remarks as utterly without merit.
>
>>You are using inference (such as "chance of funding the security
>>establishment", "advocating legislation" etc.) for attributing to me what
>>you see as reprehensible views. You do that by saying that I have used the
>>"if you knew what I knew" arguments as a cover. Again, you are exhibiting a
>>debating technique where you assign to me a position I have not taken and
>>then proceed to argue against it.
>
> I've said nothing of "reprehensible views," nor need I do so; I'm
>quite content with merely _disagreeing_ with some of what you have
>written. As for "assign[ing] to you a position [you] have not taken": (1)
>in your article you mentioned that "the Russian (ex-KGB) element" uses
>remailers; (2) I questioned the truth and noteworthiness of this claim;
>(3) you responded...
>
>>2. With regard to the evidence of that remailers are used by the criminal
>>element, and particularly by the Russian (ex-KGB), I am satisfied with the
>>evidence I have seen so far. As court proceedings become unsealed, everyone
>>will have an opportunity to examine that evidence. Meanwhile, you may wish
>>to browse for recent stories with the keywords <Citicorp> and <Cybercrime>
>>for such disclosures.
>
> ...very clearly asserting that you have seen evidence that is not
>publicly availlable because it remains sealed: "if you knew what I knew,"
>in shorthand. (4) I said that, imo, by and large this is not a valid basis
>for policy decisions. And now you tell me that I'm arguing against a
>position you haven't taken?
>
>>Let me repeat again, your allegation that I have not taken into
>>consideration the arguments of remailer advocates is not only false but
>>totally misleading. If you would bother to read the entire paper, you
>>would find that the views or remailer advocates are not only represented,
>>but found to be of sufficient weight and importance to warrant my
>>conclusion that anonymous remailers are here to stay. I also say that in a
>>democratic society it "...becomes politically unacceptable to designate
>>remailers as a potential source of criminal actions. Such absolute
>>prohibitions would never pass through a legislative process in a free
>>society."
>
> To be sure, you "represent" the views of remailer advocates,
>though for the most part through extensive quotation--extensive enough,
>indeed, that one of the authors quoted has publicly expressed misgivings
>about the fact that you never sought permissions. Editor of several
>scientific journals, you say? Perhaps your extensive experience with
>classified documents, which of course quote material beyond fair use
>without permission, has shaped your editorial sensibilities?
>
>>If you are looking for some totalitarian monster, you better look somewhere
>>else to vent your apprehensions.
>
> I think maybe you've strayed a bit from the subject. This is, I
>think, a strange way to respond to my closing:
>
>> In any case, I cannot wish you well in your endeavors in this regard,
>>since I disagree with most of what you say; I can, however, wish you well in
>>other regards, and I do.
>
> You're rather keen to pathologize things, aren't you? First it's
>remailers, which "remind" you of diseases; and now you've doubly
>pathologized me, as someone positively bent on finding "totalitarian
>monsters" where there are none. Please rest assured that I don't think
>you're anything of the sort.
>
>Cheers,
>Ted