[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: White House crypto proposal -- too little, too late
Joe, perhaps you didn't get the point. The fight-censorship-announce
list is for announcements (hence the name), not discussions or
back-and-forth-arguments. It's like Dave Farber's IP list -- I very
rarely include responses to what I send out. Discussions take place on
the discussion list. Do get a clue.
But the broader point is a useful one to make. I'll say it again:
freedom of speech includes the right not to speak. Private controls of
private settings are not the same as state controls of public
settings, which violate the First Amendment. (Read some of Eugene
Volokh's articles about private mailing lists and "censorship.") This
is at least the libertarian view, to which I generally subscribe. I
confess I sometimes have doubts about AOL and smut-blocking software.
Put simply: should the National Coalition Against Censorship be forced
to include off-topic rants in their newsletter? Should TIME magazine
be forced to publish rubbish? Should the American Reporter be forced
to include my rants about universal service?
The truth is that the most valuable publications -- Yale Law Review,
Wall Street Journal -- are the most selective and, by your definition,
the most "censorial." Do you see now why your view is wrong?
-Declan
On Wed, 2 Oct 1996, Joe Shea wrote:
> Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 10:27:46 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Joe Shea <[email protected]>
> To: Declan McCullagh <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: White House crypto proposal -- too little, too late
>
>
> You just managed to justify your own censorship of the list,
> Declan. Talk about clueless!
>
> Best,
>
> Joe Shea
> Editor-in-Chief
> The American Reporter
> [email protected]
> http://www.newshare.com:9999
>
>
> On Wed, 2 Oct 1996, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>
> > Joe, you submitted three pieces in roughly so many days to
> > fight-censorship-announce, with is a moderated announcement-only
> > mailing list that I send one or two pieces to each day. With some rare
> > exceptions (like feedback I got on my anti-Net-univ-service rant) I
> > don't pass along comments.
> >
> > If you want to distribute them to the discussion list, address them to
> > [email protected] instead. Perhaps you should join that
> > list. It gets about 15 messages a day.
> >
> > But don't blame me for your own cluelessness. RTFM instead of whining.
> >
> > -Declan
> >
> > PS: Freedom of speech includes the right not to speak. If I choose not
> > to publish your stuff, my right to do so is protected under the First
> > Amendment. Don't like it? Start your own
> > Joe-Shea's-wacko-views-on-First-Amendment-jurisprudence mailing list
> > instead. I'll even help you set it up.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 2 Oct 1996, Joe Shea wrote:
> >
> > > Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 09:47:59 -0700 (PDT)
> > > From: Joe Shea <[email protected]>
> > > To: Declan McCullagh <[email protected]>
> > > Cc: [email protected]
> > > Subject: Re: White House crypto proposal -- too little, too late
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Declan, how does your list work? Do you only publish comments
> > > that agree with you? I didn't see my first two, and this one only came
> > > with your response. Is this your version of freedom of the press, or what?
> > >
> > > Joe Shea
> > > Editor-in-Chief
> > > The American Reporter
> > > [email protected]
> > > http://www.newshare.com:9999
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2 Oct 1996, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > > Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 20:19:16 -0700 (PDT)
> > > > From: Declan McCullagh <[email protected]>
> > > > To: [email protected]
> > > > Cc: [email protected]
> > > > Subject: Re: White House crypto proposal -- too little, too late
> > > >
> > > > [Joe, this may be yet another area where we disagree. It represents a
> > > > power grab by law enforcement; the infrastructure is prone to failure
> > > > and can be compromised; it's more government meddling and coercion and
> > > > more restrictions on free speech; the Fed bureaucrats controlling this
> > > > are vulnerable to special-interest lobbying; the Constitution gives
> > > > the Federal government no right to impose such restrictions; the FBI
> > > > has demonstrated that we can't trust the Feds with our most personal
> > > > information; it violates an absolute right to privacy; and it's
> > > > technically impractical for a good number of applications. --Declan]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > > Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 15:57:51 -0700 (PDT)
> > > > From: Joe Shea <[email protected]>
> > > > To: Declan McCullagh <[email protected]>
> > > > Cc: fight-censorship
> > > > Subject: Re: FC: White House crypto proposal -- too little, too late
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Declan's most recent piece makes much more sense than the earlier
> > > > one. He is quite correct in emphasizing the future vulnerability of the
> > > > encryption logarithms rather than centering on whether or not terrorists
> > > > might use them. By making them impossible to crack without the key, and
> > > > permitting the key to be available to appropriate law enforcement
> > > > authorities when absolutely necessary, everyone's real needs are
> > > > satisfied, I think. I enjoyed this report a lot.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > >
> > > > Joe Shea
> > > > Editor-in-Chief
> > > > The American Reporter
> > > > [email protected]
> > > > http://www.newshare.com:9999
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>