CDT complains to my editors after post to cypherpunks
[CDT's Jonah Seiger copied this message to my editors. I'm still waiting for him to answer my questions. --Declan] --- Subject: Re: The Commerce committee votes are up at crypto.com Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 10:29:17 -0400 From: Jonah Seiger <jseiger@cdt.org> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> Declan -- If you are curious about what it is about your style that bothers CDT so much, start with this hostile, accusitory message posted to a public list (in this case, cypherpunks). This message is not a question -- it's an attack. It assumes the answer before it's asked, and it's nothing more than read meat thrown to a hungry crowd. If you have questions about how we set up the site, or how we feel about the results of Wednesday's Commerce Committee vote, all you have to do is contact us. We will be happy to talk to you. This is the way every other journalist we work with operates. Unfortunately, your pattern is different. I would have thought that after last week's unfortunate incident you would have learned something. Perhaps I was assuming too much. Jonah 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.
* Value Your Privacy? The Government Doesn't. Say 'No' to Key Escrow! * Adopt Your Legislator - http://www.crypto.com/adopt -- Jonah Seiger, Communications Director (v) +1.202.637.9800 Center for Democracy and Technology pager +1.202.859.2151 <jseiger@cdt.org> PGP Key via finger http://www.cdt.org http://www.cdt.org/homes/jseiger
Declan McCullagh wrote:
[CDT's Jonah Seiger copied this message to my editors. I'm still waiting for him to answer my questions. --Declan]
Declan --
If you are curious about what it is about your style that bothers CDT so much, start with this hostile, accusitory message posted to a public list (in this case, cypherpunks). ...
Upon reading CDT's last offering to the CypherPunks list, I was trying to figure out how to write a half-civil post telling them they had their head up their ass. When I read Declan's post, I decided that he had already taken care of the matter in a much more civil way than I could ever hope to. Since these fucking idiots seem to be scratching around in their ears after picking their asses, thereby leaving deposits which interfere with their hearing, I will take the time and trouble to point out a few things for their edification. For starters, after reading the nonsense that the CDT spammed the list with, I wondered if they were stupid, illiterate or both, since they don't seem to be able to follow either the details of what is happening with regard to the SAFE legislation and its variations, nor form a clear concept of the real issues involved. I would suggest that if CDT is going to purport to be some sort of news/information source, that they invest in a fucking dictionary and keep it on Seiger's desk. I would further suggest that if Jonah is incapable of supporting his vague claims of unjust attack by Declan, that he reread Declan's post with an eye toward learning how a real journalist provides solid details and examples to express his message and the stance he is taking. I have yet to read a CDT release which I do not have to reread to confirm my suspicion that the excess, confusing verbosity that is employed seems to serve mostly to mask the fact that they are both misrepresenting the facts and misleading those who trust them to properly outline the issues involved. In short, I would be very surprised if CDT's dicks don't smell suspiciously like Freeh's asshole. I will refrain from commenting on making a similar analogy to Freeh's tongue and CDT's assholes, as it might be in bad taste. I am beginning to think that democracy might have a better chance of having some life breathed back into it in America if someone with a chainsaw were to do some selective clear-cutting to remove the deadwood in the plethora of organizations that have the audacity to proclaim their compromises with fascism as the defense of democracy. (Can you say 'CDT'? Sure you can...) Toto ~~~~ "The Xenix Chainsaw Massacre" http://bureau42.base.org/public/xenix "WebWorld & the Mythical Circle of Eunuchs" http://bureau42.base.org/public/webworld "The Final Frontier" http://www3.sk.sympatico.ca/carljohn "InfoWar" http://bureau42.base.org/public/infowar3
At 7:41 AM -0700 9/26/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
[CDT's Jonah Seiger copied this message to my editors. I'm still waiting for him to answer my questions. --Declan]
Let us know what happens. I'd guess that your editors do nothing. Not exactly a fireable offense. Your messages to Cypherpunks or Fight-Censorship may differ in tone from your articles in "Time" or other fora. This is natural, it seems to me. The larger issue is that the CDT/VTW "players" are showing their willingness to trade away the civil liberties of us all for a few minor tidbits thrown (they think) to corporate sponsors. Washington is a city based almost exclusively on theft. It feeds off the rest of the country, indeed, the rest of the world. It thrives by collecting tribute. The more laws it can generate, the more tribute, and the more power it has. Like the other famed imperial capitals, the only game in town is politics. Meaning, how to collect and distribute money. Those who work near Washington tend to get pulled into this power vortex. They become functionaries, advisors, consultants, lobbyists, or even, sometimes, elected politicians themselves. This is probably why EFF belatedly realized that their soul was being lost and got the hell out. That so few news magazines delved into this is telling. I think a major expose of the "cyber liberties" lobbying groups in Washington is needed. Where they get their funding, what their real goals are, why they are so willing to compromise on basic liberties. Maybe you will write it, Declan. --Tim May The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
Tim May <tcmay@got.net> writes:
At 7:41 AM -0700 9/26/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
[CDT's Jonah Seiger copied this message to my editors. I'm still waiting for him to answer my questions. --Declan]
Let us know what happens. I'd guess that your editors do nothing. Not exactly a fireable offense. ...
Declan's been trying to build up a reputation as a freedom of speech advocate. Even I was taken in by his deception until Steve Boursy opened by eyes and told me that Declan is a pro-censorship scumbag. As for Declan's employers, it's not a freedom of speech issue. He gets paid to write. If he continues to write lies and to fabricate quotes, they'll be right to fire him. He's free to continue lying on his own time. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
-----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-----
Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> writes:
Declan --
If you are curious about what it is about your style that bothers CDT so much, start with this hostile, accusitory message posted to a public list (in this case, cypherpunks).
Declan forged quotes from me in his nutly news piece about Gilmore pulling my plug. Also, seeing much traffic cross-posted between cypherpunks and the fight- censorship list, I sent a subscribe request to majordomo@vorlon. I got back a robotic response saying Declan is reviewing my request... Then nothing. Apparenttly Declan doesn't want me reading his list. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
On Fri, 26 Sep 1997, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: Declan is smart. I think Vulis needs each of us to send ten copies of this back to him. Do you understand why now.
Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> writes:
Declan --
If you are curious about what it is about your style that bothers CDT so much, start with this hostile, accusitory message posted to a public list (in this case, cypherpunks).
Declan forged quotes from me in his nutly news piece about Gilmore pulling my plug.
Also, seeing much traffic cross-posted between cypherpunks and the fight- censorship list, I sent a subscribe request to majordomo@vorlon.
I got back a robotic response saying Declan is reviewing my request... Then nothing. Apparenttly Declan doesn't want me reading his list.
---
Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Graham-John Bullers Moderator of alt.2600.moderated ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ email : <real@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca> : <ab756@freenet.toronto.on.ca> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ http://www.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca/~real/index.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
At 11:17 -0400 9/26/97, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
Declan forged quotes from me in his nutly news piece about Gilmore pulling my plug.
Oh, really? First time I've heard this line from Vulis. Want me to post the complete text of our interview? You were rather reticent, shy, almost bashful, I recall. Most uncharacteristic, really. -Declan ------------------------- Declan McCullagh Time Inc. The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/
Declan McCullagh <declan@pathfinder.com> writes:
At 11:17 -0400 9/26/97, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
Declan forged quotes from me in his nutly news piece about Gilmore pulling my plug.
Oh, really? First time I've heard this line from Vulis.
Want me to post the complete text of our interview? You were rather Go ahead, forger.
--- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
Declan McCullagh <declan@pathfinder.com> writes:
At 11:17 -0400 9/26/97, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
Declan forged quotes from me in his nutly news piece about Gilmore pulling my plug.
Oh, really? First time I've heard this line from Vulis.
This is a lie. I pointed out the forgery right after Declan posted his netly news piece on this mailing list. You may recall that Declan was one of the few people openly supportive of Gilmore's censorship - both in his mailing list traffic and editorializing in his netly news piece. The only reason why I mentioned Declan's forgery again is because I saw Declan's lack of accuracy and disregard for the truth being discussed again, by CDT. I don't know why he worked up his panties in such a knot. Declan's been trying to picture himself as a "freedom fighter" of sorts on this forum. Well, the truth is that he supported Gilmore's censorship and more recently didn't allow me to read his mailing list, aptly named "fight-censorship". --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
Dimitri, please forward your original message complaining about being misquoted in my Netly article. I don't remember such a thing. Of course you were whining in general back then, but that's hardly surprising. I've never styled myself as a "freedom fighter." I do support property rights, and the right to do what you want with your own computer is certainly one of those. Feel free to read f-c. The archives are publicly available on the web, and have been for years. Unless Vulis says something interesting, this will be my last response to him. Sometimes it's not worth it to dignify a post with a reply. -Declan At 19:07 -0400 9/26/97, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
Declan McCullagh <declan@pathfinder.com> writes:
At 11:17 -0400 9/26/97, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
Declan forged quotes from me in his nutly news piece about Gilmore pulling my plug.
Oh, really? First time I've heard this line from Vulis.
This is a lie. I pointed out the forgery right after Declan posted his netly news piece on this mailing list. You may recall that Declan was one of the few people openly supportive of Gilmore's censorship - both in his mailing list traffic and editorializing in his netly news piece.
The only reason why I mentioned Declan's forgery again is because I saw Declan's lack of accuracy and disregard for the truth being discussed again, by CDT. I don't know why he worked up his panties in such a knot.
Declan's been trying to picture himself as a "freedom fighter" of sorts on this forum. Well, the truth is that he supported Gilmore's censorship and more recently didn't allow me to read his mailing list, aptly named "fight-censorship".
------------------------- Declan McCullagh Time Inc. The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/
On Fri, 26 Sep 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:
[CDT's Jonah Seiger copied this message to my editors. I'm still waiting for him to answer my questions. --Declan]
Maybe they can't distinguish Declan as journalist and Declan as online debate participant (for lack of a better term). Since I know of nothing wrong with your reporting, either in accuracy, or in usefullness your editors should know this and I would hope they would keep you on. If there is a cardinal virtue for a journalist it is to have active opinions, but to keep them out when assigned to report facts. But in other venues, they should be free to express those opinions. The original post appeared not to be from Declan in his capacity as a journalist (he is free to correct me). I assume that if it was part of his assignment to ask this, he would have called.
If you are curious about what it is about your style that bothers CDT so much, start with this hostile, accusitory message posted to a public list (in this case, cypherpunks).
This message is not a question -- it's an attack. It assumes the answer before it's asked, and it's nothing more than read meat thrown to a hungry crowd.
If you have questions about how we set up the site, or how we feel about the results of Wednesday's Commerce Committee vote, all you have to do is contact us. We will be happy to talk to you. This is the way every other journalist we work with operates.
I have seen far worse attacks (literal, not simply asking hard questions) by other participants here, as well as defenses. I don't see the CDT calling their employers or customers and complaining or praising. I too am interested in the answers to the questions. I don't think Markey-White is good (I see nothing intrinsically pro-privacy), but I don't think it is a disaster unless it is simply the first step toward Oxley or something as bad. It is controversial, so to label it pro-privacy or pro-censorship requires at least a defense of the position - and I have heard Declan's side and tend to agree with him. And the answers are important. If the CDT thinks that Markey-White is a useful compromise (i.e. they value lifting the export ban more than the problems with the extra rules), they should say so, but that is different from saying that Markey-White is pro-privacy.
participants (8)
-
Charles -
Declan McCullagh -
Declan McCullagh -
dlv＠bwalk.dm.com -
Graham-John Bullers -
nospam-seesignature＠ceddec.com -
Tim May -
Toto