-----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 <declan@well.com> 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> <jseiger@cdt.org> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> 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> <jseiger@cdt.org> PGP Key via finger http://www.cdt.org D> http://www.cdt.org/homes/jseiger - -- .////. .// Charles Senescall apache@bear.apana.org.au o:::::::::///
::::::::::\\\ PGP mail preferred Brisbane AUSTRALIA '\\\\\' \\ PGP
-----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-----