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.

Comments

Pot kettle

[seanadams.com]

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.

And what of Obama's support for illegal wiretapping indemnity?!?

Re:Pot kettle

[Silverlancer]

Unfortunately the telcos probably had a viable defense that they were acting (1) on government instructions and (2) on government advice that their action was legal.

This isn't very hard to understand--the entire reason for the existence of the FISA law is that it explicitly states that the telcos are not to listen to the executive branch, even if it makes such an order. They blatantly ignored the law that was written exactly to stop this sort of situation.

Re:Pot kettle

[Moryath]

gleefully? hardly, that was a long battle. Incidentally, the intent of the DMCA is a good one.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. And the bones of those who were too enamored of their own good intentions to see the evil they were doing.

"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.

Funny - seems to be the Democrats being the ones trying to ramrod the old "fairness doctrine", which was one of the worst anti-1st-amendment bits of nonsense we ever had around on the books, back into law. And of course, it's the Democrats who are usually the ones trying to outlaw the free speech of anyone who opposes them as "racist" or "sexist."

No, McSame will be bad for this country. Very bad. He will be surrounded by many of the same people advising Bush now.

You still have yet to convince me that letting Obama (who will have advisers and policies the likes of Jimmy Carter's presidency) in the White House at the same time the Democrats hold the Congress, is a good idea.

Your only thing against Obama is that he is from Chicago, and the politics in Chicago are corrupt.

No, my "thing" against Obama is that I've personally witnessed his corruption.

My other "thing" is that I prefer not to let EITHER party control both the Congress and the Presidency. It's supposed to be "Checks and Balances" after all. I voted Bush in 1992 (because the Dems had Congress), but I voted Clinton in 1996, Gore in 2000, and Kerry in 2004 (pathetic as Gore and Kerry were) because the Republicans had control of Congress.

You let the Republicans have control of everything, they fuck the little guy over by letting abusive corporations run around with no restraint. You let the Democrats have control of everything, and they fuck the little guy over by taxing the so-called "rich" heavily and we watch all that cost get passed right down the chain. You make sure neither party has complete power, and we MIGHT just have a shot at turning things around - although it's been getting fuck-all harder to tell the two parties apart as the years have gone by.

Re:Pot kettle

[witherstaff]

Where's the second chances for those hurt by illegal actions? Qwest told the feds to screw themselves if they didn't have a warrant. This cost Qwest a 2 billion dollar Pentagon contract. We should feel sorry and give a pass to major players in the legalized monopoly which is the telecommunications industry?

A second chance would be to claim in a trial that it wasn't their fault, it was the suits. Then if the telcos lost some lawsuit, sue the suits who asked them to knowingly break the law for whatever damages they've incurred.

When Pelosi said impeachment was off the table I guess she meant the Dems were to give complete and utter immunity to any legal problems the white house may have been at the heart of.

Not the first, not the last

[Zeinfeld]

Phil is not the first person to feel that they have been deliberately misquoted by Declan 'make it up' MuCullagh, he probably won't be the last.

Re:Obama - Biden

[nyet]

FoxNews agrees

McCullagh was right

[Just Some Guy]

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.

Speaking of misquoting, here's what McCullagh actually wrote:

Biden's bill -- and the threat of encryption being outlawed -- is what spurred Phil Zimmermann to write PGP, thereby kicking off a historic debate about export controls, national security, and privacy. Zimmermann, who's now busy developing Zfone, says it was Biden's legislation "that led me to publish PGP electronically for free that year, shortly before the measure was defeated after vigorous protest by civil libertarians and industry groups."

Here "Biden's legislation" is "Senate Bill 266". So Zimmermann really did say that it was a law, proposed and advanced by Sen. Biden, that led him to preemptively publishing PGP.

The paragraph quoted above is correct in fact and in spirit. I'm not exactly sure what Zimmermann is opposed to. While I'm blissfully ignorant of who this McCullagh guy is outside of the recent Slashdot stories about him, I'd say he's right at least this one time.

Re:McCullagh was right

[Just Some Guy]

What's so confusing here?

The fact that Zimmermann's on record as being against Biden's legislation, which is all that McCullagh ever said in the first place.

Re:McCullagh was right

[Just Some Guy]

Neither I nor McCullagh ever said that Zimmermann disliked Biden. Seriously, re-read McCullagh's words.

Phone companies aren't violating the Constitution

[panaceaa]

What part of the constitution are you saying the CORPORATIONS violated? People's right against unreasonable searches and seizures? Because that's not something the corporations are violating -- they already have data. They don't need to search you for it. What may be unlawful on the side of the phone companies is that they gave out private information, which maybe that violates privacy laws, but it's not what the 4th amendment is talking about. The 4th amendment specifies what the government is not allowed to do.

Slashdotconservativewhining

[Anonymous Coward]

> This article is tagged 'slashkos', what does that term mean?

They're comparing Slashdot to the Dailykos, a site known for being extremely liberal. In other words, it's yet another form of conservative whining.