As we've all read by now, the NY Times delayed publishing its article on domestic eavesdropping for a year. The Public Editor of the Times -- nominally responsible to the readers -- tried to investigate the reasons for the delay, and in particular wehther or not the article should have been published before the election. He reports in today's paper (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/01/opinion/01publiceditor.html) that the executive and editor and the publisher of the Times have decline to provide any explanation whatsoever for the delay: "there is really no way to have a full discussion of the back story without talking about when and how we knew what we knew, and we can't do that." --Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as eugen@leitl.org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]