Re: Dorothy Denning
I objected to Anthony Ortenzi's article on Dorothy Denning. Much of the attacks seemed appropriate for a politician like Clinton (:-)), but aren't appropriate for an academic who's doing politics about technical areas, where there so much more *useful* ways to flame her ideas, rather than her character.
Number 1, if someone is an encryption expert [...], why would they endorse anyone but the recipient being able to decode the message?
Number 2. [Newsday...] The argument was just very, well, flimsy is the word I guess. I thought so too. Part of it was from writing for a non-technical audience, but some of her arguments have been appallingly weak. El Rukn was a
You're confusing technical tactics with political/social goals. She's an expert in what you can do with encryption, she just has different values about who should be able to benefit from it and how. particularly bad example :-), and as you say, it would be nice if she'd just come out and say the government should spy on all of us to keep us from doing Bad Things; it's an argument people can relate to and discuss (though it'll get a lot of negative reaction, which is not her objective.)
Anyone know: A) Is she an expert in cryptography? Yes - her book from the early 1980s was *the* standard text on crypto for quite a few years, and she's published some other reasonable papers. Dr. Denning is department head of CS or EE or something at Georgetown.
C) Was she dropped on her head a lot as a baby? Probably got scared by a Commie Terrorist Drug Dealer, and comforted by some friendly federal police officer... or else was educated in government-run schools. :-)
Also, I've gotten a message through to Ross Perot about our fight against Clipper, and how to reach me, so if I get a response, I'll let Clipper sounds like just the kind of thing Perot would enjoy.
Bill
bill.stewart@pleasantonca.ncr.com +1-510-484-6204 sez:
I objected to Anthony Ortenzi's article on Dorothy Denning. Much of the attacks seemed appropriate for a politician like Clinton (:-)), but aren't appropriate for an academic who's doing politics about technical areas, where there so much more *useful* ways to flame her ideas, rather than her character.
I could not agree more. I would rather see her ideas discussed though than flamed.
Number 1, if someone is an encryption expert [...], why would they endorse anyone but the recipient being able to decode the message?
You're confusing technical tactics with political/social goals. She's an expert in what you can do with encryption, she just has different values about who should be able to benefit from it and how.
I spoke with her at some length today and later with a man she recommended I also speak with that is an Assistant to the Director at the NSA. It *is* a question of who should be able to benefit from it but not because they are conerned about any of us here. More later.
as you say, it would be nice if she'd just come out and say the government should spy on all of us to keep us from doing Bad Things; it's an argument people can relate to and discuss (though it'll get a lot of negative reaction, which is not her objective.)
She won't come out and say that because that is not at all what she believes. She is not even looking at us much or giving much thought to the Bad Things we might do. Her scope is much larger than "us."
C) Was she dropped on her head a lot as a baby? Probably got scared by a Commie Terrorist Drug Dealer, and comforted by some friendly federal police officer... or else was educated in government-run schools. :-)
I wish I could get across to you all how this C) kind of attack affects even people of her stature and public standing. This is a very poor charactature of her as I found her in discussion or have found her writings. She is calm, reasonable, not in the least a hard liner and I haven't seen a trace of the personality traits you give a basis for. Yes, she is very frustrated, even depressed sounding, because she cannot seem to find a way to convey the reality of her concern without it being distorted or pulled into a ridiculous context and yes she is frustrated because she clearly sees the problems facing Clipper. What has not been discussed here very much and what I felt going into the conversations with these people is that they *can't* tell us what they are afraid of. It is not a matter of won't. The conversations bore this out. We have been concentrating on in our discussion here on how much they fear the loss of a power they have gotten used to and abused to where we find it offensive. That is not nearly so much what they fear. It is the *unknown*. It is pretty hard to make public statements like that. The real issue is that this is an *enabling* technology that allows any group of people distributed over the world to meet spontaneously in secret to plan anything. I don't think we can even conceive, nor have they yet, the ways the real Bad Guys (I hope we can agree that some do exist) might find to use this new ability. A very clear danger is sensed in Washington with little real benefit to the civilized and civil majority. In fact, the reason I began to have the qualms about this that I have been expressing lately (besides being in a position to open this Pandora's Box myself now) is that the reason I started looking at crypto a couple of years ago was that I was in an extremely agitated, nearly revolutionary state during the period slightly before the LA riots and for a while thereafter and I came to the conclusion that this system needed to be brought down, simple. I felt that this could be pulled off, in fact, if a method of secure voice communication could be established that would *enable* country wide planning and synchronization. Think about it. Well, my politics have changed considerably for several reasons but I well remember my initial motive for studying crypto and looking for a solution to the man in the middle that didn't require any passwords or prior agreement. I have not, however, lost the belief that dedicated revolutionaries could use it to create havoc not just here but world wide and that could just be the tip of the iceberg. I don't know what the solution is though and I don't think that Dr. Denning, President Clingon or the NSA really has one. The cat is out of the bag now and they seem to realize to their near depression that it won't go back in. I requested the phone meeting with her because I needed to discuss these moral issues with someone that I felt was looking a bit more deeply into it all. I am not sure what I am going to do. I no longer really want to be the one to open the box with something easy to use and foolproof but I know that it is just a matter of time before someone else meanders down the path I found so why act on my personal concerns only to lose the chance to be the first out of the gate. I asked these questions and ran into heavy sighs. I believe it is well understood that only voluntary means of controling this exist and that liklihood is very small. Persuasion is not working and the press has been whipped into a near hysterical state over this by we and our friends (yes, we on the internet are considered to be the force that has derailed their hopes and that was unforseen.) As is obvious I don't consider this government to be a monolithic antagonistic entity out to strip us of rights. Sure it has happened in areas but they are reasonably isolated areas. There are *many* people in this rather diverse government and in an advising capacity to it whose sole concern is our safety and these people are worried. I find it interesting that there are many people here who lack the imagination to understand that there probably are a goodly number of reasons for rightly feeling the need for a Clipper like solution and that it would not be appropriate for the government to be public about them. Why is that so difficult to understand in these times of international strife, terror and technology? 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.------------------
From what you have said, it sounds like Denning, et. al's objections are of a similar ilk; they are afraid of how this might completely change society. I agree; it probably will. However, while there may have been some societal upheavals that can be traced back to the introduction of
From: rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 1994 20:10:15 -0800 (PST) What has not been discussed here very much and what I felt going into the conversations with these people is that they *can't* tell us what they are afraid of. It is not a matter of won't. The conversations bore this out. We have been concentrating on in our discussion here on how much they fear the loss of a power they have gotten used to and abused to where we find it offensive. That is not nearly so much what they fear. It is the *unknown*. It is pretty hard to make public statements like that. Yes, it is pretty hard, because it makes it seem as if they have small minds. There have been people who have likened the coming of computers and networking to the invention of the Gutenburg printing press --- that is, it is a critical, enabling technology that will have extremely serious impacts on our society as we know it. I can imagine that back then, the Catholic church must have been deeply opposed to letting the "hoi polloi" access to books, and access to learning. Think of how it would disrupt the social order!!! the printing press, in the end I think we can all agree that the printing press was a good thing. The important point that you make is that the cat really *is* out of the bag; I am just concerned that the government, in a futile attempt to try to stuff the cat back in, does perhaps fatal damage to all of our civil rights in its desperation. Look at how civil forfeiture has been used to completely strip someone of his properties, without any due process. Look at the RICO act, and the truely scary things that you can do with it; it was originally applied against the Big Bad Mob, but it's turning out to have much broader applications. So if the cat really is out of the bag, then the government should give up on this ill-conceived Clipper abortion as soon as possible. The fact that the Clipper propoents may actually be recognizing the hopelessness of their task this is a sign of hopefulness or a sign of great danger; the question is whether they will act like rational human beings, or a cornered animal. - Ted
Theodore Ts'o says:
I can imagine that back then, the Catholic church must have been deeply opposed to letting the "hoi polloi" access to books, and access to learning. Think of how it would disrupt the social order!!!
Don't look back to the Catholics, Ted. The Russians and Chinese restricted access to printing presses, because they knew that they would permit the overthrow of the government. Dorothy and all the rest are Statists. They are no different from the Russians and the rest. The Communists wanted to restrict access to printing presses because they felt them to be a danger to their society, and Denning and the rest want to restrict cryptography for exactly the same reason. They have no love for the constitution -- they believe in "balancing" constitutional rights, "giving up" rights for "security" and all the rest. They THINK they have love for the constitution. They THINK they are patriots. In fact, they are no different in ANY of the arguments they make from fascists or communists. If Denning knew how much of what she said sounds exactly like stuff coming out of Pravda from the 1960s, she'd probably either flip or go into denial. I used to read translations of Pravda a lot as an original source for researching Soviet history. Her stuff also bears an uncanny resemblence to public statements made by Nazi leaders at various times about dangerous things the public couldn't get their hands on, and how various rights needed to be restricted in order to "protect" the public.
The important point that you make is that the cat really *is* out of the bag; I am just concerned that the government, in a futile attempt to try to stuff the cat back in, does perhaps fatal damage to all of our civil rights in its desperation.
People forget about the fact that rights are not just a nicety, the way Denning thinks. They are critical to our survival. The U. S. is not a nice place that happens to grant rights because it has a benevolent government -- it has a benevolent government and is a nice place because it grants rights. This crucial distinction is lost on those who would trade rights for safety -- the Dennings of the world believe safety is a commodity that may be purchased with rights. John Gilmore has noted that once you have replaced all a government's mechanisms with mechanisms that would be needed for a fascist government to run the country, fascism can be achived by a mere change in attitude by the governors. Denning and the rest don't grok that. They think "this is America; it can never happen here." My relatives who perished in the holocaust all said "this is Germany; the land of Goethe and Schiller; one of the greatest intellectual centers on earth; how can this happen here?" People never ask the distinction that made the U.S. government stable where others fall every few decades. They just assume it to be a fact of nature -- that they can play with the basis of that fact all they like without making the fact itself disappear. Cause and effect do not work that way.
Look at how civil forfeiture has been used to completely strip someone of his properties, without any due process. Look at the RICO act, and the truely scary things that you can do with it; it was originally applied against the Big Bad Mob, but it's turning out to have much broader applications.
Once all telecommunications in this country are instantly interceptable; once all the FBI Digital Telephony crap and the Clipper crap are merged together, any fascist takeover could immediately start bugging all phones at will. They could immediately determine who their enemies were talking to at will. They could trace all economic transactions at will. (They want to be able to do that, too -- look at FinCen, also an idea "to protect us".) In short, this is a major tool that they would want. It looks so much like the premises behind the East German or Bulgarian phone network ran on that we should ask ourselves WHY.
So if the cat really is out of the bag, then the government should give up on this ill-conceived Clipper abortion as soon as possible.
It is, of course, already way too late for them to do anything. The damage they can do before they realize this might, however, be extreme. Perry
Wow, Bob, what a vision. You (and Dr Denning and certainly the gov't) seem to be afraid that:
any group of people distributed over the world [can] meet spontaneously in secret to plan anything.
Freedom of association was so revered by the founders of this country that they put it in the very first amendment to the Constitution. If I am not free to meet with my friends, associates or others, then what freedom do I have? Yes, I'm a First Amendment purist. <shrug> I'm sorry, but visions of nameless, faceless "Bad Guys" with nameless, faceless nefarious plans just don't move me. I understand that the pro-Clipper people feel a real danger and are trying to block against it. But there are real nameable, quantifiable dangers all around me and if I want protection I'll ask for it. Till then... First they stole the fourth amendment. I said nothing because I don't deal drugs. Then they took the sixth amendment. I was silent because I know I'm not guilty. When they came for the second amendment, I kept quiet because I don't own a gun. Now they've come for the first amendment, and I can't say anything at all. --Alan Wexelblat, Reality Hacker, Author, and Cyberspace Bard Media Lab - Advanced Human Interface Group wex@media.mit.edu Voice: 617-258-9168 Page: 617-945-1842 na53607@anon.penet.fi We are Chaos Boys. We are coming to a paradigm near you.
participants (5)
-
Alan (Miburi-san) Wexelblat -
Perry E. Metzger -
rcain＠netcom.com -
tytso＠ATHENA.MIT.EDU -
wcs＠anchor.ho.att.com