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.
Folk got way to over-excited about it. 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.
The original objective in bringing the lawsuits was to uncover the criminal behavior by the Bush administration so that they could be held accountable for it. Suing the telcos was the only way to force the documents into the open.
Do not confuse the tactics adopted by people trying to stop the abuse with the objectives of the perpetrators. Phil Z. is pointing out that on civil liberties issues McCain is every bit as bad as Bush, we can expect a continuatio of the same lawless behavior.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Here is what McCullagh said: "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."
I think Zimmermann is reading too much into the words above. I just don't see how that can be interpreted as saying that Zimmermann opposes Biden himself.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
The telcom immunity blocks civil suits from being made. To be honest, I fully expect the telcos to let a couple of their employee sheep to get locked up in criminal trials with out even shedding a tear. However, if you hit the telcos with a $200 billion civil judgment for their bad behavior (and make sure they cannot weasel out of it) they will think twice before doing it again. No civil trials now. That is why Obama's vote for FISA and telecom immunity was so bad.
Biden's political record is fairly typical of strong government Democrats. It's really the Republicans who are supposed to be more on the side of smaller government and stronger civil liberties.
Unfortunately, Republicans largely have abandoned their libertarian positions. They have deregulated the economy, but it has led to a financial disaster in the banking and housing sectors.
Had the Republicans taken a stronger stand on civil liberties while advocating a well regulated economy with noninflationary fiscal policies, and consistently low-interest monetary policies, they would not be in the situation they are in right now.
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!
And who decides what the line is between "criminals" who get a day in court and "terrorists" who you feel should be shot on sight? You? George Bush? Whoever has the gun?
I don't believe that our foreign policy created terrorists.
Good grief you are living in a fantasy world. What do you think the Iranians thought when the US installed the Shah in 1954? What do you think the Kurds and Shiites thought when the US provided the chemicals used to make the poison gas he attcked them with? What do you think all Latin Americans thought when the US installed governments friendly to them and their banana corporations, over and over again?
Anyone with even a modicum of knowledge of history could come up with numerous examples of the US setting up governments contrary to local wishes. To not see the resentment that brings, and the "terrorists" that creates, is willful ignorance sufficient to qualify you for a position in the Bush regime.
Infuriate left and right
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.
Unless the phone companies were acting as agents of the government.
Slashdot - The great and glorious cluster fuck of Internet wisdom.
Fighting terrorists is like getting hit by a woman. If she hits you like a man, you hit her back like a man.
The only man who hits a woman is a coward and a cad. Only a coward hits anyone at all for any reason. A moral person (or nation) doesn't stoop to the actions of an amoral cad.
You need to stop pretending that terrorism is a criminal act.
There is no pretense; it is a criminal act. The US is supposed to be a nation of laws. To have the government ignore its own law is to invite anarchy.
You and your kind keep intimidating that the best course for the USA is to cut some sort of a deal with radical Islam
No, the best course for the USA is to not stoop to their level, nor to ignore our own morality. The best course for the USA is to grow a spine and stop fearing these assholes. They are practically harmless; every year, more Americans are murdered by friends and relatives than were murdered by Osama this entire century so far.
Nobody that I know of has EVER said we should compromise with them. Your straw man is oin fire, fool.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest