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.
For some reason, Declan thrives on trashing Dem candidates and gaining publicity for it.
Declan was responsible for the media misinterpretation of Al Gore's statement that he "took the initiative in creating the Internet."
McCullagh himself once claimed that "If it's true that Al Gore created the Internet, then I created the 'Al Gore created the Internet' story
that Biden is a shill for the media cartels who also hates encryption and Net Neutrality? To wit: Joe Biden Loves RIAA Biden loves RIAA, FBI tech Biden: Pro-Copyright Friend of RIAA, MPAA
Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
Bingo,
The EFF could not sue the government directly before as the government was claiming that all the information was classified.
Now we have the necessary proof that the illegal conduct occurred and that it was authorized by the government officers. That was the objective from the start.
The suits against the telcos are not completely over yet, nor will they be over until the next government takes office. The EFF will continue to litigate them in order to prevent the destruction of the evidence.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Opposing parties in control of different branches seems to be a good thing. When it's a choice of either a little being done through compromise or nothing being done through vitriol, politicians will generally choose the former, if only to claim that they are the ones that can cross the aisle to get things done.
I've said for a long time that I value the role that those on the far right and far left play. They are the anchors for their respective realms that keep the country generally on the right path. We do veer off on occasion, and sometimes badly so, but generally, the US does the right thing, especially when the requirement is that a given party compromise with the other to get a portion of its agenda past.
I don't believe that the Republican platform is the best for the United States, but I agree with some parts of it. Likewise, I don't believe that the Democratic platform is the best for the United States, but I agree with some parts of it. There are members of Congress that I approve of and respect on both sides of the aisle, and sometimes they are in the far corners but they actually believe that they're doing the right thing, and not just being shrill naysayers of those not in their party.
It seems to me that we get the least good done when it's all one party or when the process degenerates to "We're not them!", and the most good done when we are forced to work together. Someone always feels left out in the latter case because their preferred position got cut out of the final deal, but that's how our system -- with or without parties -- was always intended to work.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Until Obama and other Democratic congress critters gave in to the Bush Administration and telco lobbying this summer, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) outlawed wiretaps without a warrant, and had done for over 30 years. The rules were well-known to the telcos and their attorneys.
Several telcos were asked to break the law by the Bush Administration; one, Qwest, responded by asking for documentation that the request was constitutional. It was not provided, and they did not tap. They were also excluded from certain lucrative federal contracts.
Consider the AT&T Fulsom Street tap: all traffic passing through AT&T's Fulsom Street, SFO CO passed through a splitter into a room controlled by the Feds. Consider that an individual unwarranted wiretap has a $1500 penalty, and multiply that by the number of customers whose traffic they carry in a day.
Why do you think the telcos lobbied for immunity?
Why are they paying for the Democratic convention in Denver?
And what of Obama's support for illegal wiretapping indemnity?!?
Right! As you so astutely observe, there's absolutely no difference between caving in to an authoritarian policy when under intense political pressure and drafting said policies with the plan of getting them passed via creating said political pressure.
Rock Us, Dukakis.
Only one major corporation refused to go along with Bush's little wiretapping plan, Qwest. The CEO of Qwest, at that time, just happens to be in jail now (theoretically for a backdating scandal). During his trial and in his counter suit he claimed not only that he was being punished for not cooperating with the Patriot Act, but that the wire tapping system was being implemented by NSA 7 months before 9/11.
Most people dismissed his claims assuming he was grasping at straws, trying to stay out of jail. But employees at several other telcos have confirmed his story.