Clipper (Re: Dorothy Denning)
"W. Kinney" <kinney@bogart.Colorado.EDU> writes:
I think this is very perceptive. Clipper is perhaps the best they could _think_ of given an outmoded set of axioms. If the presumptions people in government have about their own role are no longer valid, they probably don't fully realize it yet, or at least can't admit they do.
I disagree. My opinion is that the axioms involved are 1) We're in power, and want to stay there. 2) Some kinds of technology greatly enhance our power if we control them. 3) Crypto Technology is a major threat to our power unless we control it. 4) Maybe we can stop it if we act quickly, at a cost to society that's low enough that we won't cause a major revolt 5) If we pull that off, the success will help consolidate our power. 6) The public believes almost anything we tell them, at least for a while, as long as we sound sincere. Of those axioms, only 4) is really in question, though 1a) is a bit shaky. Even George Bush could pull off 6) as long as the economy was doing ok. Some of the people, though probably not Clinton, have some other axioms, which I'll agree are obsolete or outright bogus, like: -1) Government is inherently a good way to do things. -2) We can accomplish a lot of good things with our power. -3) We're not really interested in power for its own sake -4) We're smart enough to run a planned economy
Clipper is just the kind of woefully clueless thing people in that position would come up with.
It's not at all clueless. It's offensive, unAmerican, and probably won't win, but there's a subtle malignity to it that's almost Nixonesque in its cleverness, and it's tacky enough they may be able to pull it off. Bill # Bill Stewart AT&T Global Information Solutions, aka NCR Corp # 6870 Koll Center Parkway, Pleasanton CA, 94566 Phone 1-510-484-6204 fax-6399 # email bill.stewart@pleasantonca.ncr.com billstewart@attmail.com # ViaCrypt PGP Key IDs 384/C2AFCD 1024/9D6465
bill.stewart@pleasantonca.ncr.com +1-510-484-6204 sez:
I disagree. My opinion is that the axioms involved are
Me too. I would like to substitute a bit.
1) We're in power, and want to stay there.
No argument there. :-)
2) Some kinds of technology greatly enhance our power if we control them.
2) Some kinds of technology greatly enhance the power of those that are ruthless and dangerous.
3) Crypto Technology is a major threat to our power unless we control it.
2) Crypto technology could well be a major threat to the world's safety unless we control it.
4) Maybe we can stop it if we act quickly, at a cost to society that's low enough that we won't cause a major revolt
4) Maybe we can stop it if we act quickly while still providing society the benefits it wishes.
5) If we pull that off, the success will help consolidate our power.
5) If we pull that off, the success will help protect society from being disrupted, damaged or held hostage by those wishing power.
6) The public believes almost anything we tell them, at least for a while, as long as we sound sincere.
6) The public feels we are interested in their private lives and we must change that perception toward our actual concerns.
Clipper is just the kind of woefully clueless thing people in that position would come up with.
It's not at all clueless. It's offensive, unAmerican, and probably won't win, but there's a subtle malignity to it that's almost Nixonesque in its cleverness, and it's tacky enough they may be able to pull it off.
It's not at all clueless, offensive or unAmerican and it still probably won't win. It represents nothing more or less than a studied and earnest offer of a method that can compromise so as to give society the potential benefit of the technology while also giving us the protection that it is and has been their job to give. All that they can do in fact, and they know this, is to attempt to persuade people to voluntarily leave them with that ability. The most valuable thing that Clipper is doing I think is showing the unscrupulous and scrupulous within government (and I still believe the unscrupulous to be a small subset even though I think there are entire agencies without scruples) what messing with the people in the fashion of unconvicted forfiture, can cause. I mean c'mon, who is going to believe that a group who can and will take all of a person's belongings and sell them before convicting the person and not return them on aquittal will stop short of arbitrary, fishing expedition privacy invasion? I hope that those in the NSA, the intelligence community and the military, who see the now potentially disasterous consequences of the actions of a few of their cousins in government like the DEA, will slap them around a bit. They could ya' know. If it were not for clowns like those who have seeemed to a very large segment of society to have run totally amuck I think there would not be the sturm and drang that this issue now stirs up in groups like this. You men and women in and close to government who are sincerely concerned about crypto for good reason don't have to look very far to see who created this problem for you. What comes 'round goes 'round is the lesson here. I just hope the lesson isn't as harmful to student and teacher alike as it has the potential to be. Peace, Bob -- Bob Cain rcain@netcom.com 408-354-8021 "I used to be different. But now I'm the same." --------------PGP 1.0 or 2.0 public key available on request.------------------
Robert Cain writes:
2) Some kinds of technology greatly enhance our [the government's] power if we control them.
2) Some kinds of technology greatly enhance the power of those that are ruthless and dangerous.
Gee, these statements seem kinda similar...
3) Crypto Technology is a major threat to our power unless we control it.
2) Crypto technology could well be a major threat to the world's safety unless we control it.
I don't understand why I can't participate in making that decision. Why should I trust the government to do so in a way that's even close to representing my values? Isn't this supposed to be a representative democracy? How did such decisions get moved out of the realm of public debate?
4) Maybe we can stop it if we act quickly, at a cost to society that's low enough that we won't cause a major revolt
4) Maybe we can stop it if we act quickly while still providing society the benefits it wishes.
Uhh... I'd rather not pay my government to "provide" me with "benefits" like privacy; I'll take care of that myself, thanks.
5) If we pull that off, the success will help consolidate our power.
5) If we pull that off, the success will help protect society from being disrupted, damaged or held hostage by those wishing power.
Says who? Why should I believe it?
6) The public believes almost anything we tell them, at least for a while, as long as we sound sincere.
6) The public feels we are interested in their private lives and we must change that perception toward our actual concerns.
Yea right. Pull the other one. -- | GOOD TIME FOR MOVIE - GOING ||| Mike McNally <m5@tivoli.com> | | TAKE TWA TO CAIRO. ||| Tivoli Systems, Austin, TX: | | (actual fortune cookie) ||| "Like A Little Bit of Semi-Heaven" |
participants (3)
-
m5＠vail.tivoli.com -
rcain＠netcom.com -
wcs＠anchor.ho.att.com