Slashdot Mirror
Phil Zimmermann Replies To CNet On Biden
A couple of days ago we discussed a CNet article on the tech voting record of Joe Biden, Barack Obama's running mate. Philip Zimmermann, who was mentioned in that piece, sends the following note to set the record straight.
"In his 23 August opinion piece in CNet, Declan McCullagh wrote on Joe Biden's suitability as the Democratic VP nominee, Declan quotes me, creating the impression I criticized Biden for some legislation that Biden introduced in 1991. Declan's quote from me is out of context because it does not make it clear that I never mentioned Biden in my original quote at all when I wrote about Senate Bill 266. Second, Declan's quote is drawn from remarks I wrote in 1999. Declan seems to be trying to draft me in his opposition to Biden, and, by extension, makes it seem as if I am against the Democratic ticket. I take issue with this."
Read below for the rest of Phil's comments.
When someone serves in the Senate for 30 years, we have to judge them by their whole body of work. Much has happened since 1991. I don't know what Biden's position would be today on the issue of encryption, but I would imagine it has changed, because I can't think of any politicians today who would try to roll back our hard-won gains in our right to use strong crypto. In fact, considering the disastrous erosion in our privacy and civil liberties under the current administration, I feel positively nostalgic about Biden's quaint little non-binding resolution of 1991.
Declan's article seems to imply that I would prefer McCain over the Democratic ticket. But McCain's stated policies on wiretapping, the Patriot Act and other policies that undermine privacy and civil liberties are a seamless continuation on the current administration's policies.
When someone serves in the Senate for 30 years, we have to judge them by their whole body of work. Much has happened since 1991. I don't know what Biden's position would be today on the issue of encryption, but I would imagine it has changed, because I can't think of any politicians today who would try to roll back our hard-won gains in our right to use strong crypto. In fact, considering the disastrous erosion in our privacy and civil liberties under the current administration, I feel positively nostalgic about Biden's quaint little non-binding resolution of 1991.
Declan's article seems to imply that I would prefer McCain over the Democratic ticket. But McCain's stated policies on wiretapping, the Patriot Act and other policies that undermine privacy and civil liberties are a seamless continuation on the current administration's policies.
Fighting terrorists is like getting hit by a woman. If she hits you like a man, you hit her back like a man. If a terrorist hits you like a nation state, then you hit them back, like a nation state. That means, no courts, no tribunals, only war and death for them.
So yeah, I would almost agree that the torture of three Al Qaeda operatives was bad morally. We should have killed them on site!
You need to stop pretending that terrorism is a criminal act. Criminals don't seek to destroy a government or a people - as they ultimately are a sort of parasite that needs its host to live. Terrorists want to destroy the state and take over. You seem to want to live in a fantasy world where boundaries of the world's nations matter. They don't. They don't matter to software developers, corporations, leftists, rightists, and they certainly don't matter to terrorists.
You and your kind keep intimidating that the best course for the USA is to cut some sort of a deal with radical Islam. Perhaps we should reason with them. Well, maybe you should have spared everyone 50 million dead and not guaranteed Polish neutrality in 1939 or perhaps just handed Singapore over to the Imperial Japanese Army. Quite often, people that want to kill you and take your stuff aren't interested in reason, they are only interested in your stuff, and your life is just a trouble to them. But be that as it may, what sort of compromises with Al Qaeda should we make? Where was the criminal court for the WTC occupants, for Daniel Pearl and for all the Iraqi people they beheaded? There wasn't any. These people are evil and there's no negotiating with them.
So tell us, what compromise in the name of peace in our time should we make with Al Qaeda and other radical islamic groups? Shall we permit men to beat their wives? Shall we allow polygamy? Maybe we should encourage illiteracy. What other book do you need besides the Koran. I've read enough of your police state + compromise with Islam crap in the UK and I can see that it is absolute crap. You can turn London into Al London if you like, but I prefer Washington DC to stay Washington DC, and if the Muzzies don't like it, then fuck them. They've already shit up their own part of the world and can't even put together a meaningful economy despite loads of oil money, and we're supposed to adopt elements of that failed culture?
Get real.
This is my sig.
gleefully? hardly, that was a long battle. Incidentally, the intent of the DMCA is a good one.
"Republicans and Democrats seem to hate that pesky "free speech" thing when their problems are being exposed."
Irrelevant. Which one passes laws to prevent it? why, it's republicans.
Contrary to what he says, Lieberman is not middle of the road, as such shouldn't be in the mix when creating an example.
No, McSame will be bad for this country. Very bad. He will be surrounded by many of the same people advising Bush now.
Your only thing against Obama is that he is from Chicago, and the politics in Chicago are corrupt.
Nice logical fallacy you created to make your self feel good for voting party and not actually thinking.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on