Re: White House crypto proposal -- too little, too late
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 20:19:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu Cc: joeshea@netcom.com Subject: Re: White House crypto proposal -- too little, too late [Joe, this may be yet another area where we disagree. It represents a power grab by law enforcement; the infrastructure is prone to failure and can be compromised; it's more government meddling and coercion and more restrictions on free speech; the Fed bureaucrats controlling this are vulnerable to special-interest lobbying; the Constitution gives the Federal government no right to impose such restrictions; the FBI has demonstrated that we can't trust the Feds with our most personal information; it violates an absolute right to privacy; and it's technically impractical for a good number of applications. --Declan] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 15:57:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Joe Shea <joeshea@netcom.com> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> Cc: fight-censorship Subject: Re: FC: White House crypto proposal -- too little, too late Declan's most recent piece makes much more sense than the earlier one. He is quite correct in emphasizing the future vulnerability of the encryption logarithms rather than centering on whether or not terrorists might use them. By making them impossible to crack without the key, and permitting the key to be available to appropriate law enforcement authorities when absolutely necessary, everyone's real needs are satisfied, I think. I enjoyed this report a lot. Best, Joe Shea Editor-in-Chief The American Reporter joeshea@netcom.com http://www.newshare.com:9999
Declan, how does your list work? Do you only publish comments that agree with you? I didn't see my first two, and this one only came with your response. Is this your version of freedom of the press, or what? Joe Shea Editor-in-Chief The American Reporter joeshea@netcom.com http://www.newshare.com:9999 On Wed, 2 Oct 1996, Declan McCullagh wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 20:19:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu Cc: joeshea@netcom.com Subject: Re: White House crypto proposal -- too little, too late
[Joe, this may be yet another area where we disagree. It represents a power grab by law enforcement; the infrastructure is prone to failure and can be compromised; it's more government meddling and coercion and more restrictions on free speech; the Fed bureaucrats controlling this are vulnerable to special-interest lobbying; the Constitution gives the Federal government no right to impose such restrictions; the FBI has demonstrated that we can't trust the Feds with our most personal information; it violates an absolute right to privacy; and it's technically impractical for a good number of applications. --Declan]
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 15:57:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Joe Shea <joeshea@netcom.com> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> Cc: fight-censorship Subject: Re: FC: White House crypto proposal -- too little, too late
Declan's most recent piece makes much more sense than the earlier one. He is quite correct in emphasizing the future vulnerability of the encryption logarithms rather than centering on whether or not terrorists might use them. By making them impossible to crack without the key, and permitting the key to be available to appropriate law enforcement authorities when absolutely necessary, everyone's real needs are satisfied, I think. I enjoyed this report a lot.
Best,
Joe Shea Editor-in-Chief The American Reporter joeshea@netcom.com http://www.newshare.com:9999
Joe, you submitted three pieces in roughly so many days to fight-censorship-announce, with is a moderated announcement-only mailing list that I send one or two pieces to each day. With some rare exceptions (like feedback I got on my anti-Net-univ-service rant) I don't pass along comments. If you want to distribute them to the discussion list, address them to fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu instead. Perhaps you should join that list. It gets about 15 messages a day. But don't blame me for your own cluelessness. RTFM instead of whining. -Declan PS: Freedom of speech includes the right not to speak. If I choose not to publish your stuff, my right to do so is protected under the First Amendment. Don't like it? Start your own Joe-Shea's-wacko-views-on-First-Amendment-jurisprudence mailing list instead. I'll even help you set it up. On Wed, 2 Oct 1996, Joe Shea wrote:
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 09:47:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Joe Shea <joeshea@netcom.com> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com Subject: Re: White House crypto proposal -- too little, too late
Declan, how does your list work? Do you only publish comments that agree with you? I didn't see my first two, and this one only came with your response. Is this your version of freedom of the press, or what?
Joe Shea Editor-in-Chief The American Reporter joeshea@netcom.com http://www.newshare.com:9999
On Wed, 2 Oct 1996, Declan McCullagh wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 20:19:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu Cc: joeshea@netcom.com Subject: Re: White House crypto proposal -- too little, too late
[Joe, this may be yet another area where we disagree. It represents a power grab by law enforcement; the infrastructure is prone to failure and can be compromised; it's more government meddling and coercion and more restrictions on free speech; the Fed bureaucrats controlling this are vulnerable to special-interest lobbying; the Constitution gives the Federal government no right to impose such restrictions; the FBI has demonstrated that we can't trust the Feds with our most personal information; it violates an absolute right to privacy; and it's technically impractical for a good number of applications. --Declan]
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 15:57:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Joe Shea <joeshea@netcom.com> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> Cc: fight-censorship Subject: Re: FC: White House crypto proposal -- too little, too late
Declan's most recent piece makes much more sense than the earlier one. He is quite correct in emphasizing the future vulnerability of the encryption logarithms rather than centering on whether or not terrorists might use them. By making them impossible to crack without the key, and permitting the key to be available to appropriate law enforcement authorities when absolutely necessary, everyone's real needs are satisfied, I think. I enjoyed this report a lot.
Best,
Joe Shea Editor-in-Chief The American Reporter joeshea@netcom.com http://www.newshare.com:9999
You just managed to justify your own censorship of the list, Declan. Talk about clueless! Best, Joe Shea Editor-in-Chief The American Reporter joeshea@netcom.com http://www.newshare.com:9999 On Wed, 2 Oct 1996, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Joe, you submitted three pieces in roughly so many days to fight-censorship-announce, with is a moderated announcement-only mailing list that I send one or two pieces to each day. With some rare exceptions (like feedback I got on my anti-Net-univ-service rant) I don't pass along comments.
If you want to distribute them to the discussion list, address them to fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu instead. Perhaps you should join that list. It gets about 15 messages a day.
But don't blame me for your own cluelessness. RTFM instead of whining.
-Declan
PS: Freedom of speech includes the right not to speak. If I choose not to publish your stuff, my right to do so is protected under the First Amendment. Don't like it? Start your own Joe-Shea's-wacko-views-on-First-Amendment-jurisprudence mailing list instead. I'll even help you set it up.
On Wed, 2 Oct 1996, Joe Shea wrote:
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 09:47:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Joe Shea <joeshea@netcom.com> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com Subject: Re: White House crypto proposal -- too little, too late
Declan, how does your list work? Do you only publish comments that agree with you? I didn't see my first two, and this one only came with your response. Is this your version of freedom of the press, or what?
Joe Shea Editor-in-Chief The American Reporter joeshea@netcom.com http://www.newshare.com:9999
On Wed, 2 Oct 1996, Declan McCullagh wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 20:19:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu Cc: joeshea@netcom.com Subject: Re: White House crypto proposal -- too little, too late
[Joe, this may be yet another area where we disagree. It represents a power grab by law enforcement; the infrastructure is prone to failure and can be compromised; it's more government meddling and coercion and more restrictions on free speech; the Fed bureaucrats controlling this are vulnerable to special-interest lobbying; the Constitution gives the Federal government no right to impose such restrictions; the FBI has demonstrated that we can't trust the Feds with our most personal information; it violates an absolute right to privacy; and it's technically impractical for a good number of applications. --Declan]
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 15:57:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Joe Shea <joeshea@netcom.com> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> Cc: fight-censorship Subject: Re: FC: White House crypto proposal -- too little, too late
Declan's most recent piece makes much more sense than the earlier one. He is quite correct in emphasizing the future vulnerability of the encryption logarithms rather than centering on whether or not terrorists might use them. By making them impossible to crack without the key, and permitting the key to be available to appropriate law enforcement authorities when absolutely necessary, everyone's real needs are satisfied, I think. I enjoyed this report a lot.
Best,
Joe Shea Editor-in-Chief The American Reporter joeshea@netcom.com http://www.newshare.com:9999
Joe, perhaps you didn't get the point. The fight-censorship-announce list is for announcements (hence the name), not discussions or back-and-forth-arguments. It's like Dave Farber's IP list -- I very rarely include responses to what I send out. Discussions take place on the discussion list. Do get a clue. But the broader point is a useful one to make. I'll say it again: freedom of speech includes the right not to speak. Private controls of private settings are not the same as state controls of public settings, which violate the First Amendment. (Read some of Eugene Volokh's articles about private mailing lists and "censorship.") This is at least the libertarian view, to which I generally subscribe. I confess I sometimes have doubts about AOL and smut-blocking software. Put simply: should the National Coalition Against Censorship be forced to include off-topic rants in their newsletter? Should TIME magazine be forced to publish rubbish? Should the American Reporter be forced to include my rants about universal service? The truth is that the most valuable publications -- Yale Law Review, Wall Street Journal -- are the most selective and, by your definition, the most "censorial." Do you see now why your view is wrong? -Declan On Wed, 2 Oct 1996, Joe Shea wrote:
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 10:27:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Joe Shea <joeshea@netcom.com> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com Subject: Re: White House crypto proposal -- too little, too late
You just managed to justify your own censorship of the list, Declan. Talk about clueless!
Best,
Joe Shea Editor-in-Chief The American Reporter joeshea@netcom.com http://www.newshare.com:9999
On Wed, 2 Oct 1996, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Joe, you submitted three pieces in roughly so many days to fight-censorship-announce, with is a moderated announcement-only mailing list that I send one or two pieces to each day. With some rare exceptions (like feedback I got on my anti-Net-univ-service rant) I don't pass along comments.
If you want to distribute them to the discussion list, address them to fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu instead. Perhaps you should join that list. It gets about 15 messages a day.
But don't blame me for your own cluelessness. RTFM instead of whining.
-Declan
PS: Freedom of speech includes the right not to speak. If I choose not to publish your stuff, my right to do so is protected under the First Amendment. Don't like it? Start your own Joe-Shea's-wacko-views-on-First-Amendment-jurisprudence mailing list instead. I'll even help you set it up.
On Wed, 2 Oct 1996, Joe Shea wrote:
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 09:47:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Joe Shea <joeshea@netcom.com> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com Subject: Re: White House crypto proposal -- too little, too late
Declan, how does your list work? Do you only publish comments that agree with you? I didn't see my first two, and this one only came with your response. Is this your version of freedom of the press, or what?
Joe Shea Editor-in-Chief The American Reporter joeshea@netcom.com http://www.newshare.com:9999
On Wed, 2 Oct 1996, Declan McCullagh wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 20:19:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu Cc: joeshea@netcom.com Subject: Re: White House crypto proposal -- too little, too late
[Joe, this may be yet another area where we disagree. It represents a power grab by law enforcement; the infrastructure is prone to failure and can be compromised; it's more government meddling and coercion and more restrictions on free speech; the Fed bureaucrats controlling this are vulnerable to special-interest lobbying; the Constitution gives the Federal government no right to impose such restrictions; the FBI has demonstrated that we can't trust the Feds with our most personal information; it violates an absolute right to privacy; and it's technically impractical for a good number of applications. --Declan]
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 15:57:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Joe Shea <joeshea@netcom.com> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> Cc: fight-censorship Subject: Re: FC: White House crypto proposal -- too little, too late
Declan's most recent piece makes much more sense than the earlier one. He is quite correct in emphasizing the future vulnerability of the encryption logarithms rather than centering on whether or not terrorists might use them. By making them impossible to crack without the key, and permitting the key to be available to appropriate law enforcement authorities when absolutely necessary, everyone's real needs are satisfied, I think. I enjoyed this report a lot.
Best,
Joe Shea Editor-in-Chief The American Reporter joeshea@netcom.com http://www.newshare.com:9999
BTW, Joe, I'm still waiting for your response to my comments on why your endorsement of key escrow (GAK) is braindead. Or do you still think that the Feds should have the right to spy on my conversations, just like you thought that "porn isn't speech?" -Declan On Wed, 2 Oct 1996, Joe Shea wrote:
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 09:47:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Joe Shea <joeshea@netcom.com> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com Subject: Re: White House crypto proposal -- too little, too late
Declan, how does your list work? Do you only publish comments that agree with you? I didn't see my first two, and this one only came with your response. Is this your version of freedom of the press, or what?
Joe Shea Editor-in-Chief The American Reporter joeshea@netcom.com http://www.newshare.com:9999
On Wed, 2 Oct 1996, Declan McCullagh wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 20:19:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu Cc: joeshea@netcom.com Subject: Re: White House crypto proposal -- too little, too late
[Joe, this may be yet another area where we disagree. It represents a power grab by law enforcement; the infrastructure is prone to failure and can be compromised; it's more government meddling and coercion and more restrictions on free speech; the Fed bureaucrats controlling this are vulnerable to special-interest lobbying; the Constitution gives the Federal government no right to impose such restrictions; the FBI has demonstrated that we can't trust the Feds with our most personal information; it violates an absolute right to privacy; and it's technically impractical for a good number of applications. --Declan]
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 15:57:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Joe Shea <joeshea@netcom.com> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> Cc: fight-censorship Subject: Re: FC: White House crypto proposal -- too little, too late
Declan's most recent piece makes much more sense than the earlier one. He is quite correct in emphasizing the future vulnerability of the encryption logarithms rather than centering on whether or not terrorists might use them. By making them impossible to crack without the key, and permitting the key to be available to appropriate law enforcement authorities when absolutely necessary, everyone's real needs are satisfied, I think. I enjoyed this report a lot.
Best,
Joe Shea Editor-in-Chief The American Reporter joeshea@netcom.com http://www.newshare.com:9999
participants (2)
-
Declan McCullagh -
Joe Shea