I largely agree with Pat Farrell's comments about the vicious attacks on various crypto folks. I was the one who jokingly used the term "wicked witch of the East" in reference to D.D., though I am almost 100% certain it was only to this mailing list, and not to sci.crypt in general. Perhaps I let my enthusiasm for my wit take precedence over judgment. And in other places, such as sci.crypt, I have in fact defended Denning against ignorant comments along the lines of "Who is this Dorothy Denning person? I can't find her name anywhere in "The Codebreakers." She must not know anything about crypto." Whatever we may think of her position on Clipper, criticizing her personally and imputing motives to her that cannot possibly be known to outsiders, is foolish. What really bothers me is the type of criticism, which I also tend to call "ad hominem" (but which rhetoriticians may have a special name for), in which people impute _motives_ to others. Thus, we see seemingly endless comments about the motives of Denning, of Bidzos, of Sternlight, and of others. (When I posted on the topic of possible cooperation with Bidzos and RSA, I was hit with a barrage of highly critical rebuttals. The substantive ones were fine, and expected, but the ones speculating on my motives and imputing evilness to me were uncalled for. I wrote them off as typical Net zeal, and am still on good terms even with those who foamed at the mouth the most.) "Demonizing" our opponents, or making them look like dunces (as with the many "I've never heard of Dorothy Denning before" posts), does not help our cause. In fact, it probably weakens our cause, for two reasons. First, it cuts off dialog with those we disagree with. Second, we tend to underestimate people we have written off as stooges or dunces. While I think Dorothy Denning is, for various reasons, hopelessly in the camp of the NSA and FBI, I see nothing to be gained by demonizing her. Or imputing evil qua evil motives. Personally, I think being close to the FBI, Justice Dept., NIST, NSA, etc., and socializing with them, having lunch with them, doing contract work for them (nothing evil about that, per se...it's how academic departments fund their research), and generally being in "the Washington scene" has polarized her somewhat, just as we Cypherpunks are polarized by the support we get from our peer group, from the "cognitive dissonance" of seeing mostly the evidence that supports our existing point of view. When you spend your time in a milieu, work with people on their problems, you begin to adopt their world view. Understand, of course, that I am not addressing the underlying issues of who is right and who is wrong...I've already made my beliefs on this clear. I'm just agreeing with Pat Farrell that we all need to be careful not to demonize folks like Denning, Bidzos, or even Sternlight. We don't have to be solicitous (overly polite) toward them, and we can knock down their arguments, but we ought not to use cheap shots and cheap rhetorical tricks (one I hate especially is the "sound effect" jab, the "<snicker, snicker>" sort of comment inserted into postings, sometimes even into the direct quotes of those being attacked!). Pat writes:

Even more annoying are the attacks on Jim Bidzos. He is trying to make a buck, which was legal last time I looked. And on many issues, he is far more in our camp than against us. He at least likes strong cryptography, and his disputable patents expire in a relatively short time. He has agreed to allow a PGP-compatible program to use RSA without cost, providing the legal version that many U.S. users would like to see.

I agree, though of course he and RSADSI did not fight as hard as they might have, in my opinion, on the subject of the cross-licensing with the DSS and Clipper/Skipjack products. I don't pretend to understand all of the issues involved, though I certainly can imagine he felt a lot more pressure (legal, export, classification) from the Feds than he felt from a loose organization of crypto privacy advocates. We're not where the money is, at least not yet. (In fact, Cypherpunks are generally not even customers of RSADSI, so why should Bidzos really care about our views? The industry security group that has denounced Clipper is undoubtedly much more influential.) Meanwhile, I have no real interest, personally, in the whole RSA v. PGP issue...let those directly involved work it all out. I will applaud loudly if Phil Z. and the other PGP folks do in fact reach an agreement with RSADSI, if only because it will remove one possible avenue of attack on private encryption. -Tim May -- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: by arrangement Note: I put time and money into writing this posting. I hope you enjoy it.