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.
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?!?
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.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
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's because they don't understand how to use computers, let alone how to get on the Internet.
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."
assume they have been bought and sold so many times, that they don't really have any position on any issue. If they were your foe 15 years ago, that doesn't mean they're your foe today. Nor your friend.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
FoxNews agrees
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:
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.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Maybe Phil should have digitally signed his original comment :-)
Take Nobody's Word For It.
I'm no fan of the immunity. Far from it. But you do realize that that bill was going to pass even without him, right? And Obama did try to remove that part of the bill.
But there were enough Republicans & "blue dog" Democrats in this election year that they would have been painted as "terrorist sympathizers" for voting against FISA at all (indeed, that is exactly what the right-wing forums tend to call them).
And it doesn't help that McCain wholeheartedly supports this. He voted for FISA before he voted against it, and he's supported it many, many times on the campaign trail.
Finally, it's not over. The EFF is now suing the government directly. I'm not happy with this state of affairs, but Obama is still the better of the two when it comes to this issue.
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
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.
Shock! Horror! Next we'll be hearing of ursine defecation in arboreal settings.
I don't think he is really thinking about how to sell ads, the Ann Coulter comment is more on target.
Declan is a libertarian, not a Libertarian. I would certainly not consider him a partisan booster for anything other than himself and his own career.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Actually he is a libertarian, he once told me that he was just interested in knocking down both sides.
Perhaps someone in the know could bolster this claim with examples of his hit pieces on Republicans.
Not that the absence of these things means he's necessarily a Republican. Many economic libertarians -- especially the capital-L sort that genuinely believe that markets are the transcendant mediating social institution -- tend to see the Democrats as the greater of two evils because Dems have a greater tendency to also see state/public institutions as part of the toolset of active policy, while Republicans tend to at least pay lip service in opposition to this.
At any rate, the problem with knocking down both sides is that human society really doesn't allow for a power vacuum. You create something else to fill it first, or you reckon with the unintended consequences of whatever emerges. And you either have private power checked only by other private power, or you come up with a mediating public social institution. I'd be fascinated to hear what Declan's particular proposal is, if he's not so busy manipulating things that he's taken the time to genuinely think things through.
Tweet, tweet.
Was back in the mid-1980s, when he was beating the drum for protectionism to keep TI and Intel in the DRAM business. His plan was basically to fuck over the entire computer industry to protect two vendors from competitors who were doing a far better job. He's why we had that period of memory prices actually going up for a short while. That's when I decided he was a pig-ignorant, big-government interventionist that we'd all be far better off without.
In the years since then, he's been one of the assholes who promoted the DMCA, he voted for the Iraq war and the Patriot act, (in fact, he bragged quite a bit at the time that the patriot act was based on a similar attack on the bill of rights that he'd written shortly after the Oklahoma City attack.)
So, when faced with his first major decision, the guy spewing all this hogwash about "change we can believe in" chooses an apparatchik who's spent half of his life in the senate, voting for anything that could possible increase the power of the federal government.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
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.
my blog
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?
You, my good sir, are the one living in a fantasy world. By attacking "terrorists" as if they are a nation state (which they are NOT, by any definition I've ever read), you create more terrorists. You cannot end terrorism strictly by killing those who are terrorists. Their deaths will only cause more people to become angry at the US, and turn to terrorism.
Nobody in the Democratic leadership has suggested we "cut a deal with radical Islam". If you can cite a source for your claim, please do. Nobody has suggested we negotiate with al Qaeda. We do not negotiate with terrorists, and never will. Perhaps you are confused by the suggestion by Jimmy Carter that we allow Hezbollah to negotiate as part of a peace deal with Israel. This is unfortunately a misunderstanding created by a lack of in-depth reporting by the general US media on Hezbollah. They are not really a terrorist organization as it is traditionally thought of, as they are actually a fairly large political party in Lebanon (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah ).
The compromises you seem to speak of, such as trials for captured al Qaeda operatives, are not compromises. Those things are part of our Constitution, part of the Geneva Convention, and part of long-established international law. The real compromise was the decision NOT to treat these prisoners under our own rule of law, and this was a compromise against our very premise as a country. It was and is an unacceptable compromise. You seem to take a short-term view that a little compromise is ok, but you seem to forget that the longer term is more important. The way to defeat terrorism is to end the reason for there to be terrorists -- our inept foreign policy has created most of them. The other way--killing them all--will require total nuclear warfare, because quite simply, the more people you kill in the name of ending terorism, the more people you enrage, and thus eventually the world turns against you. At what point do you realize that an eye for an eye does indeed leave the whole world blind?
I'm not saying we shouldn't have gone in to Afghanistan, because we directly requested that Osama Bin Laden and his top leadership be handed over for trial. The Taliban refused, and thus made themselves culpable in the acts of these terrorists. Some terrorists do have to die. But we must recognize that there are limits to this, and that we must remain in adherence with the law when we do use the military for this purpose, or we become the very thing we are trying to defeat.
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?
That's a pretty damned good question, I'll give you that.
How about this. IF we say that someone who has a rifle is a criminal, they get tried like a criminal, but if they are coming at you with a big bomb of some kind, you kill them.
The thing about terrorism is that it's just a function of technological advance. It used to be that you had to have a nation state to wage a war, but now, just like anyone can print 100 books at home, anyone can start a war. So, I would say, if they've got a big ass bomb, then yeah, you just assume the declaration of war and kill them. If they got a pistol and are just shooting up a 7-11 to get some crack, they get a trial and jail. IT's two entirely different things.
The weapon of choice determines the scale. Crime - little weapons - terrorists - big weapons, get it?
This is my sig.
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?
Constitution say, US Citizens have rights. Foreign POWs, foreign invaders, and foreign asshats on foreign soil bringing foreign bombs to soldiers deployed in foreign countries don't.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
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
*slow clap*
Bravo. You crammed enough misogyny and stupid into your first sentence to qualify for a cabinet position in the current administration. Or you're joking. Either way, keep posting. That was hilarious.
She sat at the window watching the evening invade the avenue.
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.
What a stretch. Your whole bizarre argument rests on thinking of Iraq as having a functioning democracy.
The government there, which has only the outward appearance of a democracy, stays in place only as long as the US bleeds for it. Democracy cannot be imposed from the outside. It has to come from the people themselves. As long as any government is propped up by outsiders, it is not a government of its own people, and is not a functioning government, let alone a functioning democracy.
Infuriate left and right
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.
The economy of their part of the world was "shit up" by an elite few, usually backed by larger richer nations, often the United States. That's one of the reasons that terrorists exist at all. Poverty and a perception of exploitation and disdain from America creates terrorists. For every terrorist killed in Iraq, we're making 10 more who will show up in 10-30 years. Doing smaller, targeted, not publicized operations is the only military option than would actually make progress.
If or when the Chinese start to call in their debts on America and the economy here starts to tank on a level that makes the current downturn seem laughable, idiots here will start taking up the same sort of views that idiots in say, Iran, have now. If an American terrorist group attacked China and blew up a building, and the Chinese in response occupied the western United States, you and your buddies, along with a lot of other poorly educated, quick tempered people will be motivated to become terrorists yourselves. Then maybe you'll have a more nuanced perspective on today's radical Islam.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
You need to stop the histrionics and start thinking.
West Germany and Great Britain both faced a terrorist threat in the 1970s. The West Germans responded treating the issue as a criminal matter and were very successful in containing the Baader-Meinhof gang. The British government responded with Bush style tactics and the problem only grew worse.
The British only began to be successful in rolling back the IRA when they started treating them as criminals. The IRA realized this and began campaigning for the British to treat them as political prisoners, not common criminals. Bobby Sands starved himself to death trying to stop the British government calling him a common criminal.
The war on terror campaign is completely counterproductive. It promotes Bin Laden to the status of a nation state. You go to war with countries, not criminals. And stop calling him a Jihadi and start calling him a hirabi instead.
Any fool can make tough talk about 'dead or alive', the fool in the white house has engaged in trash talk for the past seven years. But none of it has had any effect. Bin Laden is still alive, so is Al Zawahiri who is the real brains of the outfit.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
I think the blame America school of thinking is one of the main reasons that the Democrats lose elections. Certainly if I were an American I'd find it pretty hard to vote for them while they spout this sort of nonsense.
Sure the US makes mistakes, but claiming that US policy is the root of all evil seems like inverted nationalism to me. It's also grossly simplistic.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Except they don't want our stuff. They want us out of their affairs, and to stop babying Israel. I say give it to them.
If installing a faux democracy in Iraq has reduced terrorism, why are there more terrorists in Iraq now than before under Saddam?
Infuriate left and right
If installing a faux democracy in Iraq has reduced terrorism, why are there more terrorists in Iraq now than before under Saddam?
Whose to say that they weren't there under Saddam, just, they were working for him. You know, gassing the kurds and shiites with American weapons, as you so fondly pointed out earlier.
This is my sig.
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
Leaving Iraq won't reduce terrorism for the simple reason you can't un-break an egg.
A few years ago we decided to support a country fighting against those "commies" by sending troops money etc. with promises we'd help them rebuild. After they won, we had no use for them, so we pulled out leaving them devastated and poor. The religious right in the country preyed on their new-found hatred of the broken American promise...and the Taliban was born from our former allies whom we left standing at the alter.
I was against the war in Iraq before it started. But there's an old slogan "You break it, you buy it" -- and we broke Iraq. To me, the only correct policy in Iraq involves a stable government at least not as bad as the one we deposed. Or else we repeat history.
But not breaking the egg in the first place? That's a different argument all together and one not addressed by your criticisms.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.