[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: CDT complains to my editors after post to cypherpunks

To: Declan McCullagh <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: CDT complains to my editors after post to cypherpunks
From: Charles <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 03:39:03 +1000
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 26 Sep 1997 10:41:59 -0400." <v03007811b05179a2663f@[204.254.22.23]>
Sender: [email protected]


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----



It would appear the excitement of the last couple of days has been too
much for Jonah. It confounds belief that following Shabbir's public
post to cypherpunks inviting inspection of www.crypto.com that Jonah,
the communications officer for CDT, of all people would seek to squash
public debate of queries arising therefrom from you, Declan, or indeed
from any other individual.

Given that Jonah views your post to Shabbir as as an attack and has
failed to respond to any of the issues raises further questions which
I leave for the reader to ponder.

I would hope Jonah can recover sufficiently to enable himself to get
over the irrelevant matter of whether your post constitutes an attack
and perhaps consider communicating a response to the substantive
issues you raised.


>>>>> "D" == Declan McCullagh <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote the following on Fri, 26 Sep 1997 10:41:59 -0400

  D> [CDT's Jonah Seiger copied this message to my editors. I'm still
  D> waiting for him to answer my questions. --Declan]

  D> ---

  D> Subject: Re: The Commerce committee votes are up at crypto.com
  D> Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 10:29:17 -0400 From: Jonah Seiger
  D> <[email protected]> To: Declan McCullagh <[email protected]>


  D> Declan --

  D> If you are curious about what it is about your style that bothers
  D> CDT so much, start with this hostile, accusitory message posted
  D> to a public list (in this case, cypherpunks).

  D> This message is not a question -- it's an attack.  It assumes the
  D> answer before it's asked, and it's nothing more than read meat
  D> thrown to a hungry crowd.

  D> If you have questions about how we set up the site, or how we
  D> feel about the results of Wednesday's Commerce Committee vote,
  D> all you have to do is contact us.  We will be happy to talk to
  D> you.  This is the way every other journalist we work with
  D> operates.

  D> Unfortunately, your pattern is different. I would have thought
  D> that after last week's unfortunate incident you would have
  D> learned something.  Perhaps I was assuming too much.

  D> Jonah

  D> At 11:19 PM -0400 9/25/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
  >> Thanks, Shabbir, for putting this vital information online. But
  >> I'm a little puzzled. I fear the CDT/VTW crypto.com web site may
  >> be misleading.
  >> 
  >> You say, for instance, that opposing SAFE yesterday was a vote
  >> "against Internet privacy" and "against passing the SAFE bill out
  >> of committee."  That's not true. The Markey-White-amended bill
  >> the committee approved yesterday was not the SAFE bill. It was a
  >> deviant version with important differences from SAFE.
  >> 
  >> The Markey-White amendment includes: the doubled
  >> crypto-in-a-crime penalties (10-20 years!), the sop to eventual
  >> mandatory key recovery by including liability immunity for
  >> turning over keys to the Feds or the sheriff of Podunk County,
  >> the bogus NETcenter that effectively gives the NSA a statutory
  >> basis for domestic evildoing, etc. (Markey wanted to take credit
  >> for killing the original SAFE. He told the Washington Post "after
  >> the vote" that the original, better, Goodlatte SAFE "no longer
  >> exists as a political option." That's right -- thanks to his own
  >> amendment...)
  >> 
  >> The second and third votes are essentially the same: should the
  >> above provisions be in the Commerce committee of the bill. But
  >> why do you avoid taking a position on whether the second vote on
  >> Markey-White was good or bad?
  >> 
  >> If the second description was to avoid taking a position on
  >> Markey-White, it doesn't work. You say in your third description
  >> that a vote for the amended Markey-White bill was a good one. Why
  >> would CDT/VTW endorse such disturbing legislation? (And not admit
  >> it?) To what extent was CDT/VTW involved in drafting Markey-White
  >> and to what extent did you encourage committee members to vote
  >> for it?
  >> 
  >> Also, the description for the third vote is misleading by
  >> itself. It just says "report SAFE" when it should say "report
  >> SAFE with Markey-White provisions" out of committee.
  >> 
  >> And, given these problems with Markey-White, why is the CDT/VTW
  >> crypto.com site counting a vote for the Markey-White-amended bill
  >> as a vote for "Internet privacy?" I should think that given the
  >> problems -- such as doubling of crypto-in-a-crime and sop towards
  >> mandatory key recovery -- that a vote against the
  >> Markey-White-amended bill is a //good// vote, not one against
  >> Net-privacy.
  >> 
  >> If a legislator wanted to vote for Internet freedom and reject
  >> deviant bills, he should have voted against Oxley, Markey-White,
  >> and against passing the bill with Markey-White out of committee
  >> yesterday. (That would have left the cleaner Judiciary committee
  >> version of SAFE as a more likely option.) Rep. Brown, for
  >> instance, did just that -- yet you tar him as against Internet
  >> freedoms.
  >> 
  >> Go figure.
  >> 
  >> -Declan
  >> 
  >> 
  >> crypto.com says:
  >> 
  >>> Voted in favor of Internet privacy at the full Commerce
  >>> committee vote on Sep 24 1997. This vote was against attaching
  >>> the Oxley-Manton 'Big Brother' amendment to SAFE.
  >>> 
  >>> Voted against the Markey-White amendment at the full Commerce
  >>> committee vote on Sep 24 1997. The vote was against attaching
  >>> the Markey-White amendment to SAFE.
  >>> 
  >>> Voted against Internet privacy at the full Commerce committee
  >>> vote on Sep 24 1997. The vote was against passing the SAFE bill
  >>> out of committee.
  >> 
  >> 
  >> 
  >> At 17:56 -0400 9/25/97, Shabbir J. Safdar wrote:
  >>> Last night's votes on SAFE in the Commerce committee are in
  >>> place at http://www.crypto.com/member/
  >>> 
  >>> Simply select the member of Congress you're curious about,
  >>> either by zip code or by state, and you can see how they voted
  >>> in the three Commerce votes last night.  Then, you can call and
  >>> yell or send kudos.



  D> * Value Your Privacy? The Government Doesn't.  Say 'No' to Key
  D> Escrow! * Adopt Your Legislator - http://www.crypto.com/adopt

  D> -- Jonah Seiger, Communications Director (v) +1.202.637.9800
  D> Center for Democracy and Technology pager +1.202.859.2151
  D> <[email protected]> PGP Key via finger http://www.cdt.org
  D> http://www.cdt.org/homes/jseiger

- --
   .////.   .//    Charles Senescall             [email protected]
 o:::::::::///                                   
>::::::::::\\\     PGP mail preferred                  Brisbane AUSTRALIA
   '\\\\\'   \\    <A HREF="ftp://bear.apana.org.au/pub/crypto">PGP</A>






-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv

iQEVAwUBNCvzNnawhvoxf0r9AQHxawf/bxMsoyNQOXY4v9EfbDH5YBQkkhmi1jL1
IB64kalbRQkhvF+Ql3tI4tCc9c3HA3imaJ8+hxet/GvWqEUSyYJ3hOdS8rcYr20S
smpj0YVWNJVSPFLI2uf4DiVDlsIHQYTafmDmGUxOrZ29biM0cL96gGtC9xA/Cfi5
H/b4cJcpQrzg1vshWiMihrE3rN5QXyoNaSXMx9S4TIt9XPIO4aWA+VOhX/Q8FGGv
dGdaVxi86wzYpWnROFfyS2qBIVBCPGWy1FM2xGIMBv1ESfZ/0UWdjAuzcFAO2dyr
0VCbN7OUrhdPaT0a8Ba0StoeLLf4z/42P4kJe/PMl6ODjLbQHaRCIw==
=f7PW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

References:
- CDT complains to my editors after post to cypherpunks
  - From: Declan McCullagh <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Re: Remailer Attack
Next by Date: Re: CDT complains to my editors after post to cypherpunks
Prev by thread: Re: CDT complains to my editors after post to cypherpunks
Next by thread: Re: CDT complains to my editors after post to cypherpunks
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread