At 01:29 AM 3/30/96 -0500, Ted Garrett wrote:

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

At 01:06 PM 3/29/96 -0800, you wrote:

...

The implication is that the people who oppose this "list of shame" are doing so primarily for PERSONALITY reasons, rather than on the issues. I would feel better about the whole thing if the people who volunteered for the list had engaged in some sort of serious effort to show that the placement of the other people on that list was unjustified. Lacking even the most rudimentary effort along these lines, I really wonder who (and what) these people think they're supporting.

I think that sometimes, one's cumulative reputation must count for something. Most of the people who are included in this 'list of shame' have contributed enormously to the furtherance of the crypto field in general. Whether I conscribe to their viewpoints or not on a given subject, it is rather easy for me to think of something they have written which I use as a rather concrete reference. Thusly, given a track record of open and noteworthy thought on the field, I find it difficult to denounce, as an example, Bruce Schneier. Especially IF it's only a matter of sharing a difference of opinion on a given bill or set of bills before our lawmakers.

Considering the fact that I've not seen Mr. Schneier come out on either side of the Leahy Bill or,

He's one of the people I haven't seen respond to the Leahy bill, as well. However, I don't regularly read SCI.CRYPT or much else that he may put his comments on, and I don't recall if he commented here. That's one of the reasons to be suspicious of the motivations behind the "list of shame," however there's good reason to be even more suspicious of those who have rushed to debunk it by "standing behind" all those listed, with no distinction. I think it is obvious that at least a few people listed should have been listed, but the majority I simply don't know about. I wouldn't be surprised if at least one of those anonymous messages deliberately loaded up the list with unworthy targets simply to disguise the ones who ought to be listed.

for that matter, many of the other bills currently before the congress, it's hard for me to support mail-bombing him or many of the others on the list