Re: Sen. Leahy's "impeccable cyberspace credentials"

[Declan McCullagh <declan@eff.org>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 18:52:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@eff.org>
To: Jonah Seiger <jseiger@cdt.org>
Cc: shabbir@vtw.org, fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu, brock@well.com,
    telstar@wired.com
Subject: Re: INFO: Democratic convention chats online! Be there! (8/25/96)

Jonah,

I had expected some negative feedback from CDT, but I should say I was
surprised by the tenor of your response. 

Unfortunately, you don't address the substance of my criticisms of Leahy:
how can you defend Leahy's avowed support for Digital Telephony and the
copyright legislation? How do his actions make him a "forceful" and
"consistent advocate" with "impeccable cyberspace credentials?" 

(Hint: They don't. He isn't.)

You write that: "Of course we are not going to agree with our friends on
every issue." But I disagree with your underlying assumption; if a senator
is our "friend," they won't do what Leahy does. Being familiar with
technology does not a Net-advocate make -- take Al Gore, for instance, who
net-surfs in an Old Executive Office building cluster... 

If I'm wearing any hat at all right now, it's my cypherpunk one. And that
prompts me to say that we'll have more freedom online not by relying on
the legislative process, but by deploying pro-freedom technology like
anonymous remailers and PGP. We can't rely on an ossified Beltway
Bureaucracy to preserve our freedoms. (In fact, we need to shrink the size
of the Federal bureaucracy drastically to make it less susceptible to
special-interest lobbying and to reduce its ability to encroach upon our
civil liberties.)

We've argued about this before, of course. I recognize that we have core
philosophical disagreements. You want to work the legislative process and
compromise, while I believe that some rights can't be negotiated away. I
recall you supported White's "Harmful to Minors" CDA compromise that would
have created a new and unprecedented category of speech crimes online.
(The ACLU's Barry Steinhardt wrote on this list last fall that "no true
civil liberties organization" would support such language.) You joined
Leahy in supporting the Bennett bill, which would have permitted Equifax
to create a national medical database with few privacy safeguards. Not to
mention your defense of Leahy's pet Digital Telephony project...

You write: "But none of them [members of Congress] are gong to continue
reaching out a hand to us if we bark and bite when we don't get 100% of
our way." I'm confused by this. Does it mean we shouldn't slam Leahy when
he fucks with the Net? More disturbingly, the incorrect and misleading
label of "impeccable cyberspace credentials" makes it more difficult to
criticize Leahy when he does something (like DT funding or copyright) that
harms netizens. 

I suppose you'd like to champion Leahy as a "Friend of the Net." But I'd
rather not ignore his attempts to pass legislation that would hinder the
development of the Net and intrude on our privacy.

I reiterate my earlier statement: "Leahy is in no way a true friend of the
Net; I don't know of any Beltway politican who is." 

-Declan



On Mon, 26 Aug 1996, Jonah Seiger wrote:

> Declan:
> 
> What are you thinking?!
> 
> In a world where we have very few real friends, I simply don't understand
> what you are trying to accomplish. It's fine (and healthy) to raise
> concerns about the particular positions a member of Congress takes (hell, I
> don't agree with everything Leahy does), but to simply dismiss Leahy as a
> 'no friend of the Net'  is naive and counterproductive.
> 
> Look at the record. Leahy is hands down the strongest supporter of the Net
> in Congress. Period. No other Member (including our small but growing
> handful of other friends like Burns, White, Wyden, Cox, Eshoo, etc) has
> been a more forceful or consistent advocate for your causes for as long as
> Leahy has. What exactly do you want? Perhaps we should elect you to
> Congress and see how well you can do.
> 
> Of course we are not going to agree with our friends on every issue. If
> Leahy takes a position you don't like, I'd suggest you talk to his office.
> I have found in my experience that Leahy's staff (and him personally) will
> take the time to listen when presented with a well presented argument.
> 
> I'm also confused about another thing: which hat were you wearing when you
> wrote this? If it is your "advocate" hat I think it must covering your
> eyes. If it's your "journalist" hat, you need to do a bit better job of
> checking your facts in the future.
> 
> Go a head and reject the "Beltway politicians". It's fashionable, sure, but
> what does it really accomplish?  Some of them are dangerous. Others are
> sympathetic. The fact is that short of armed rebellion they are going to be
> here for a while.
> I shudder to think of the wrath our opponents could wage if we all threw up
> our hands packed up our bags and left town.
> 
> Face the facts. Members of Congress have a lot of constituencies to deal
> with, and we are a small and relatively powerless faction. We can do a lot
> to change the outcomes of policy debates (if I didn't believe that I
> wouldn't be doing what I do everyday), but we have to be realistic,
> recognize where we fit in to the process and who are friends are.  One
> thing's for sure - we have A LOT more enemies than we have friends.
> 
> Most members of Congress don't really understand us or our issues.  Many
> are willing to learn, and some have been real champions for our causes.
> But none of them are gong to continue reaching out a hand to us if we bark
> and bite when we don't get 100% of our way. Zealots rarely win (though it
> sure is fun to throw bombs).
> 
> Sorry for the public thrashing, but this kind of attitude REALLY gets under
> my skin.
> 
> Flames welcome (though response is not guaranteed <g>),
> 
> Jonah

// declan@eff.org // I do not represent the EFF // declan@well.com //