Now I have a firmer grasp on the dynamics of escalation. ;) A couple of notes. (1) The people Mr. Strassman CCed in his first response remained CCed throughout; one of them is his co-author, William Marlow (Senior Vice President, Science Applications International Corporation [SAIC]). (2) He hasn't responded to my last mail, and probably won't, at least in private; obviously, he's free to respond to it on Cypherpunks. (3) I find his claims to understand and properly represent the arguments for remailers to be, er, lacking: claims like "remailing capabilities are operated [...] as a public service, almost always at no charge because it costs so little to set one up," the absence of the standard penet-type arguments--about support-group discussion re sexual abuse etc.--speak for themselves, imo. Anyway:
To: paul@strassmann.com (Paul A. Strassmann) From: tbyfield@panix.com (t byfield) Subject: Re: your article on remailers
Greetings. Your article on remailers <http://www.strassmann.com/pubs/ anon-remail.html> was fascinating. The "connection" you draw between disease and techniques of anonymity is arbitrary and tendentious: in place of a careful, sustained analysis of anonymous remailers _as such_, your article relies on a bizarre rhetorical substitution of disease for anonymity--"Information terrorism poses a threat; anonymity prevents punishment; the fact that legislative and policy bodies aren't dealing with the issue reminds me of the history of public medicine; therefore anonymity is a disease like AIDS; Russian criminals are using remailers; this is how remailers work..." This isn't an argument--it's a hodgepodge of free-associations and very peculiar allegations. What evidence is there that "the Russian (ex-KGB) criminal element" (whatever that is) constitutes a *statistically significant* segment of remailer-users? If they aren't statisticaly significant, why mention them? In the absence of any specific evidence, I can only assume that this claim is pure fantasy--like the confusing association between "AIDS" and "terrorism." Certainly, both are bad for society, but so are many other things--littering, starvation, and poor workmanship. If you plan to develop your work on remailers further and present it to governmental agencies and NGOs, please take the time to *understand* the arguments of remailer advocates, rather than merely quoting them at length. You'll be doing yourself a favor--because, really, the only sections of your article that seem to make much sense are the quotations from people who develop and maintain remailers.
Ted Byfield <address>
-----------------------------
X-Sender: pas@pop.connix.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 10:31:10 -0500 To: tbyfield@panix.com (t byfield) From: paul@strassmann.com (Paul A. Strassmann) Subject: Re: your article on remailers Cc: "William Marlow" <William_Marlow@cpqm.saic.com>, "Tim Leshan" <LESHAN@ksgrsch.harvard.edu>, BRIAN KAHIN <KAHIN@HULAW1.HARVARD.EDU>
Dear Mr. Byfield:
Thanks for your comments about our remailer paper. I believe a few points are in order in response to your observations:
1. It does not seem that you have finished reading the paper. There is a long section in the end captioned <Why Remailers?> which summarizes a wide spectrum of opinions and beliefs of those who develop and offer remailer services. I am satisfied that I have represented fairly the views of those who see in remailers the defense of privacy and civil liberties. I also conclude that remailers are here to stay.
2. With regard to the evidence of that remailers are used by the criminal element, and particularly by the Russian (ex-KGB), I am satisfied with the evidence I have seen so far. As court proceedings become unsealed, everyone will have an opportunity to examine that evidence. Meanwhile, you may wish to browse for recent stories with the keywords <Citicorp> and <Cybercrime> for such disclosures.
3. In your letter you employ a technique which is not appropriate for the conduct of a civilized discourse. You start by attributing to me statements which I did not make. Then, you proceed to debunk them. Let me illustrate:
I did not use the expression "statistically significant" in describing the use of remailers by the criminal element. Therefore, your argument "...if they aren't statistically significant why mention them?" is both false as well as logically inconsistent.
Your debating style shows similar flaws by avoiding facts and arguing your own constructs of what you attribute as my views. It is only because of the importance of this subject matter that I have decided to respond to your "flame".
Sincerely,
Paul Strassmann <full quote of my email omitted>
---------------------------------------------
To: paul@strassmann.com (Paul A. Strassmann) From: tbyfield@panix.com (t byfield) Subject: Re: your article on remailers
At 10:31 AM 2/7/96, Paul A. Strassmann wrote:
Mr. Strassmann-- Since you may not wish to pursue any further discussion with someone you don't know, I'll cut to the chase: may I submit your response (unabridged) to the Cypherpunks mailing list? I notice that you've CCed my mail to three people unknown to me without my permission. (Hi, everyone...) Here are a few further remarks, if you're interested; I hope you are. I've reproduced your remarks out of their original order for purposes of brevity.
3. In your letter you employ a technique which is not appropriate for the conduct of a civilized discourse. You start by attributing to me statements which I did not make. Then, you proceed to debunk them. Let me illustrate:
You are, I trust, familiar with the phenomenon commonly called "asking a question"? That is what I did when I asked you whether Russian criminal elements constitute a statistically significant segment of remailer users: I asked you a question. This process can sometimes be confusing--for example, when the criteria that questioner and questionee judge to be important differ. I feel that, in matters of public policy, relative numbers are important: thus, if tens or hundreds of thousands of people use remailers for benign purposes while only a handful of Russian criminals do so for nefarious purposes, then public policy decisions on remailers should not be founded primarily on the latter fact. By analogy, it seems likely that someone, somewhere, has taught a monkey to drive a car--there might even be a documented instance of it; should we then take this into consideration in debating national automotive policy? After all, if it weren't illegalized, the chaos that could be caused by pet chimpanzees tooling around on public roads can't be understated... Obviously, you're free to differ on the subject of relative numbers and their bearing on policy, just as you're free to persevere under the belief that a question can be "false." I can't, however, resist pointing out that asking c[are]fully worded questions that conform to established scientific criteria is considered "appropriate for the conduct of a civilized discourse." Again, you're free to disagree, of course. [brackets in 1st line = spelling correction]
2. With regard to the evidence of that remailers are used by the criminal element, and particularly by the Russian (ex-KGB), I am satisfied with the evidence I have seen so far. As court proceedings become unsealed, everyone will have an opportunity to examine that evidence. Meanwhile, you may wish to browse for recent stories with the keywords <Citicorp> and <Cybercrime> for such disclosures.
"If you knew what I knew" arguments have needlessly become a staple of the national security establishment; but in all but the rarest instances are they a valid basis for policy decisions. I understand full well that the Russian "mafia" and former apparatchiks throughout the former Soviet bloc are serious problems that we ignore only at our peril; and, also, that invoking them increases one's chance of funding in the security establishment. But I also understand that certain segments of the USG would ultimately be better off distinguishing between its citizenry and the Russian mob, rather than continually invoking the latter in advocating legislation that pertains primarily to the former.
In any case, I cannot wish you well in your endeavors in this regard, since I disagree with most of what you say; I can, however, wish you well in other regards, and I do. Please take a moment to answer my original question regarding the Cypherpunks mailing list.
Regards,
Ted Byfield <address>
-----------------------------
X-Sender: pas@pop.connix.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 22:00:05 -0500 To: tbyfield@panix.com (t byfield) From: paul@strassmann.com (Paul A. Strassmann) Subject: Re: your article on remailers Cc: "William Marlow" <William_Marlow@cpqm.saic.com>, "Tim Leshan" <LESHAN@ksgrsch.harvard.edu>, BRIAN KAHIN <KAHIN@HULAW1.HARVARD.EDU>
I have no problem with your posting my messages. Thanks for asking except you should do so only after you include the text of all messages, including this one.
You have totally misunderstood my response to your points about the relevance of whether ex-KGB criminals ( or monkeys) are a statistically significant number. The problem with your communications has been that you have continued to disregard my conclusions where I stated that anonymous remailers are here to stay for good reasons. Whether the number of abusers is or is not statistically significant has therefore no bearing on our exchanges. For that reason I did not read your text at all as "asking a question", but as your own assertion. This makes it unacceptable as an argument.
I disagree with your assertion that you have "...asked a carefully worded questions that conform to established scientific criteria." My experience as editor of several scientific journals prevents me from acknowledging your messages as conforming to any scientific criteria. You have selectively picked arguments from the front of my paper, while totally disregarding what I said at the end. What you have is not scientific, but extractions to support your arguments.
You are using inference (such as "chance of funding the security establishment", "advocating legislation" etc.) for attributing to me what you see as reprehensible views. You do that by saying that I have used the "if you knew what I knew" arguments as a cover. Again, you are exhibiting a debating technique where you assign to me a position I have not taken and then proceed to argue against it.
Let me repeat again, your allegation that I have not taken into consideration the arguments of remailer advocates is not only false but totally misleading. If you would bother to read the entire paper, you would find that the views or remailer advocates are not only represented, but found to be of sufficient weight and importance to warrant my conclusion that anonymous remailers are here to stay. I also say that in a democratic society it "...becomes politically unacceptable to designate remailers as a potential source of criminal actions. Such absolute prohibitions would never pass through a legislative process in a free society."
If you are looking for some totalitarian monster, you better look somewhere else to vent your apprehensions.
Paul <full quote of my second message omitted>
To: paul@strassmann.com (Paul A. Strassmann) From: tbyfield@panix.com (t byfield) Subject: Re: your article on remailers
You have totally misunderstood my response to your points about the relevance of whether ex-KGB criminals ( or monkeys) are a statistically significant number. The problem with your communications has been that you have continued to disregard my conclusions where I stated that anonymous remailers are here to stay for good reasons. Whether the number of abusers is or is not statistically significant has therefore no bearing on our exchanges. For that reason I did not read your text at all as "asking a question", but as your own assertion. This makes it unacceptable as an argument.
You seem quite adamant that your repeated assertion that "remailers are here to stay" somehow serves to stave off any criticism (or at least any criticism from your struly) of your article. I read your article in its entirety and understood it quite well, and I agree with *some* of it--for example, with your conclusion that remailers are here to stay. I could just as easily read some lngthy tome full of rubbish whose conclusion is that "stuff exists" and agree with its conclusion while remaining skeptical about the bulk of the book. I would submit to you that your article would be much improved if you edited out this pathological-biological metaphor.
I disagree with your assertion that you have "...asked a carefully worded questions that conform to established scientific criteria." My experience as editor of several scientific journals prevents me from acknowledging your messages as conforming to any scientific criteria. You have selectively picked arguments from the front of my paper, while totally disregarding what I said at the end. What you have is not scientific, but extractions to support your arguments.
Of course I've selectively picked arguments from your paper--I even addressed some from the *middle*! (As for the end, see my remarks above.) Unfortunately, try as you might, my remarks aren't really what's at issue here. You published an article that made extensive use of dubious metaphor and made unsubstantiated allegations that, even if they were substantiated, are of doubtful significance; when I pointed out that this method of argumentation is generally inappropriate for a democratic society, you redouble your efforts to assess my reading comprehension as low and my remarks as utterly without merit.
You are using inference (such as "chance of funding the security establishment", "advocating legislation" etc.) for attributing to me what you see as reprehensible views. You do that by saying that I have used the "if you knew what I knew" arguments as a cover. Again, you are exhibiting a debating technique where you assign to me a position I have not taken and then proceed to argue against it.
I've said nothing of "reprehensible views," nor need I do so; I'm quite content with merely _disagreeing_ with some of what you have written. As for "assign[ing] to you a position [you] have not taken": (1) in your article you mentioned that "the Russian (ex-KGB) element" uses remailers; (2) I questioned the truth and noteworthiness of this claim; (3) you responded...
2. With regard to the evidence of that remailers are used by the criminal element, and particularly by the Russian (ex-KGB), I am satisfied with the evidence I have seen so far. As court proceedings become unsealed, everyone will have an opportunity to examine that evidence. Meanwhile, you may wish to browse for recent stories with the keywords <Citicorp> and <Cybercrime> for such disclosures.
...very clearly asserting that you have seen evidence that is not publicly availlable because it remains sealed: "if you knew what I knew," in shorthand. (4) I said that, imo, by and large this is not a valid basis for policy decisions. And now you tell me that I'm arguing against a position you haven't taken?
Let me repeat again, your allegation that I have not taken into consideration the arguments of remailer advocates is not only false but totally misleading. If you would bother to read the entire paper, you would find that the views or remailer advocates are not only represented, but found to be of sufficient weight and importance to warrant my conclusion that anonymous remailers are here to stay. I also say that in a democratic society it "...becomes politically unacceptable to designate remailers as a potential source of criminal actions. Such absolute prohibitions would never pass through a legislative process in a free society."
To be sure, you "represent" the views of remailer advocates, though for the most part through extensive quotation--extensive enough, indeed, that one of the authors quoted has publicly expressed misgivings about the fact that you never sought permissions. Editor of several scientific journals, you say? Perhaps your extensive experience with classified documents, which of course quote material beyond fair use without permission, has shaped your editorial sensibilities?
If you are looking for some totalitarian monster, you better look somewhere else to vent your apprehensions.
I think maybe you've strayed a bit from the subject. This is, I think, a strange way to respond to my closing:
In any case, I cannot wish you well in your endeavors in this regard, since I disagree with most of what you say; I can, however, wish you well in other regards, and I do.
You're rather keen to pathologize things, aren't you? First it's remailers, which "remind" you of diseases; and now you've doubly pathologized me, as someone positively bent on finding "totalitarian monsters" where there are none. Please rest assured that I don't think you're anything of the sort.
Cheers, Ted