At 11:58 AM 12/3/1996, Blanc Weber wrote:
Denning is considered credible solely because her statements are consistent with the interests and views of those in authority.
Yet even if one's statements are not consistent with the established authorities, they could be credible and noteworthy to a wide audience, were the statements in consonance with reality, expressing truths observable to any (once they were isolated and identified) and understable to those who hear or read them.
I agree. I hope that my own statements have influence in spite of my mouldy reputation. (BTW, when I was young, hacking your opponents to death with a broadsword was noble and now it is politically incorrect. Privacy skeptics nota bene! Times do not change for the better.)
So is Denning offensive because she is unpleasant per se, or do negative opinions of her exist because of who/what she is supporting? i.e., because she is on "their" side, rather than "ours", because she employes her reasoning to their benefit, rather than to ours whose singular authority in this matter is under contention?
There are a number of reasons why Denning gets so much attention. She is the most prominent spokesperson for the pro-GAK view and is, therefore, a lightning rod. There was a German newscaster during the Nazi era who has been described as the "the German Walter Cronkite". He was seen as a top war criminal and was tried at Nuremburg. More recently, after the wall fell many people in Germany were eager to prosecute the East German newscaster who played a similar role in promoting the Honecker regime. It may be unjust, but people feel like they actually know the spokesperson, for better or for worse. She is seen as "one of us" because she wrote a book on cryptography. As a consequence, she is seen as a traitor. I am not endorsing this view. Many people believe that she could not honestly believe everything she says. Instead, they believe that she is sticking to a difficult party line in anticipation of rewards down the road in terms of greater prestige, career advancement, access to grant money, and maybe in other ways. This is called "toadying". It is not going to be popular amongst people who value intellectual integrity. The alternative explanation to many is that she is clueless. There is some evidence that this is the correct explanation. Denning, however, doesn't get off the hook. In the technical community, cluelessness is seen as being just short of a crime against humanity. Persistent cluelessness *is* a crime against humanity. Toadying and cluelessness are both irritating to the author. Denning may also be seen as a "suit" dictating to the programmers what kinds of programs they may write. This is not a formula for social success in the technical community. The academic community has been relatively quiet during the Clipper debate. There are very few members of academia who have gone on the record repeatedly and publicly to say that GAK is the most ridiculous thing we have ever heard and that the people proposing it must be out of their minds, or Nazis, or both. We all know that many academics believe this to be true. However, they are keeping quiet until it is clear which way the wind sets. This is irritating to many and it spills over on Denning. That is probably unfair. Unless you think she is a toady, in which case she is the canonical example of academic indifference and cynicism. In my last message, I said that it was irritating that Denning is seen as a credible spokesperson. Can we fairly hold Denning responsible for the poor judgement of the media which is employed through the poor judgement of the masses? Not really, but she's handy. Many people find the government's underhanded tactics irritating. Rather than honestly raise the issue for public discussion, and maturely, responsibly, and honestly discuss their views, the government has resorted to subterfuge in an attempt to achieve its goals. Clipper was supposed to fool everybody into accepting GAK. The export laws have been, to put it charitably, abused. These tactics are irritating because their intention is to deceive the American people. Denning appears to many to be party to these tactics. We have seen a number of people attempt to win the loyalty of the Net constituency. Gore attempted it with promises of massive funding. Gingrich has attempted it through various pronouncements. The usual pattern is to offer a reward, but in return the constituency has to compromise on something. This pattern is seen over and over again. Denning may be seen by some as yet another politician attempting to get in a position to "deliver" the Net "precinct". Some believe that she positioned herself first as "one of us" and then attempted to sell us out. In the past, it was easier to sell out a constituency due to widespread ignorance and misguided trust. This didn't work for the Net due to the high intellectual integrity of long time Net denizens, the fact that the Net abhors ignorance, and our strong belief that we do not need help reading our mail or paying for it. Still, every politician that attempts this sort of thing is irritating and Denning, if guilty, is no exception. Sir Galahad