Formal apology (RE: Crypto McCarthyism ...thoughts, gentlemen?)

[Declan McCullagh]

Well, that's about as nice an apology as I've ever seen on any list, let 
alone cypherpunks. Aimee's initial message deserves a response. (BTW there 
is a real Waco, Texas lawyer named Aimee Farr who is interested in these 
issues, though naturally we can't be certain our correspondent is that person.)

She asks for our thoughts on this:
http://www.sociology.org/content/vol002.001/ling.html

Not only is it an uninteresting sociology treatise, but it is a bad 
uninteresting sociology treatise. The first thing to note, of course, 
beyond its unnecessary jargon, is that the article is about as wrong as 
could be. Far from any "boundary crisis" leading to "mass hate," society 
has instead adopted and then accepted the Internet. It's difficult to be 
repulsed by something when you use it to share baby pictures with grandparents.

One could argue that the article was correct at the time. The article 
appears to have been written during in 1996, around the time the CDA became 
law, but even then it was a year after the Time magazine cyberscare, and 
two years after the CDA was introduced: Cyberporn was old news. Identifying 
fundamental truths is the mark of good research, and this paper comes up 
sadly lacking.

Since the paper is so flawed, I'm not sure it's worth discussing at length. 
But, briefly, is crypto as threatening as witches were? Far from it. It -- 
and its derivative technologies, such as anonymity -- seems to be perceived 
more as a way to reclaim lost privacy rather than a new and unusual threat. 
In that sense, it is a conservative technology. (This could change, and 
certainly the intelligence community is hand-waving about terrorists again, 
but I doubt it'll have much luck.)

-Declan

At 10:16 PM 2/10/01 -0600, Aimee Farr wrote:
> > Dear Aimee,
> >
> > If you're serious about asking for advice or insight, I'd self-censor
> > the snide comments.
> >
> > This group doesn't like pointy questions? To the contrary, it thrives
> > on them.
> >
> > -Declan
>
>Declan, I appreciate your bringing this matter to my attention. My sincere
>apologies to both you, the cypherpunk community and subscribers. My comments
>were tongue-in-cheek, a friendly remark regarding Choate's stealth-linkage,
>and his remarks toward women's undergarments, which I found humorous. My
>comment in regard to "pointy questions" was an attempt to give any
>respondents a wide berth in their replies, in recognition of the fact I
>could be asking the wrong questions, and was receptive of any insight. It
>was also a reference the number of mysterious queries that flow across the
>list. My reference to Gentlemen was also not meant disrespectfully, but as a
>subtle query.
>
>Nevertheless, I came across as abrasive and offended members of this forum.
>_Ladies_ & Gentlemen, you have my apologies for both my breach of decorum
>and disrespect. Such was certainly not my intention. I stand firmly
>reprimanded for my hasteful correspondence: [SUBJ: CRYPTO
>McCARTHYISM...THOUGHTS, GENTLEMEN?]
>
>You all have my admiration and respect, which is why I posed my questions to
>this distinguished group. (I am preparing to debate these issues in a
>private and hostile forum against experienced opposition. With a few notable
>exceptions, like Declan, certain viewpoints and experiences are
>under-represented in traditional source banks.)
>
>Excuse my long-windedness. I am trying to convey my intent and sincerity,
>and make a public, searchable record of my disrepute, my Declan-bitchslap
>and my apology; not to make excuses for my inappropriate, and inexcusable
>behavior.
>
>Most sincerely,
>
>mailto:aimee.farr at pobox.com
>Aimee E. Farr
>Law Office Of Aimee E. Farr
>5400 Bosque, Suite 675
>Waco, Texas 76710-4418
>254.751.0030 | 751.0963(fax)