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

[Zeinfeld]

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

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.

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

[Dan667]

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.

Re:Pot kettle

[Original Replica]

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

I think Obama's "yea" vote on the bill that contained the wiretapping indemnity was more a problem of our current system of multi-issue bills than a true expression of Obama's ideals. There was a lot of content in that bill that was quality, but the indemnity was stuck in much the same way that any other earmark or pet project is stuck in, this one just got more publicity. That said, if Obama is really about change as much as he claims to be, he will take steps to amend this flaw in our government, either through line-item veto power or much tighter restrictions on the breadth of any given bill, I would prefer the latter as a restriction of Congressional power will serve us better in the long term over an expansion of Executive power.

Re:Pot kettle

[Zeinfeld]

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.

You might think that, I might think that.

Unfortunately the current federal bench has been largely appointed by Republicans and in particular the DC Circuit has a bunch of very partisan judges - the folk who brought us the infamous Kenneth Starr and is unable to get the fact that the constitution absolutely prohibits any number of criminal activities of the Bush regime: torture, imprisonment without trial, wiretapping, etc. etc.

The problem with FISA was that the 'lawyers' for the Bush regime had purportedly found that the President could disregard any law he liked by exercising the 'inherent powers' of the Presidency. FISA did not have a sufficiently strong exclusivity clause to absolutely knock that defense out. So the compromise reached was to let the telcos off the hook in return for the administration allowing the replacement bill to specify exclusivity.

It is not a great result, but it was the best that could be obtained with the Republicans holding the Whitehouse and the Democrats only holding the Senate on the vote of Joe Lieberman. Throughout the process it was the Republicans in general and John McCain in particular who were arguing to trash civil liberties and the Democrats who were arguing to restore them. The only exception was on torture where John McCain claimed that he was going to be tough with the administration, fooled everyone into believing he was being honest then agreed to everything the administration asked for. If you care about civil liberties it makes no sense to vote for John McCain on the basis that the Democrats were unable to stop the Republicans!

Civil liberties are not just a moral issue, they are essential if you are going to have an effective government. The torture of three Al Qaeda operatives was not just bad morally, it was a total disaster from the point of view of stopping terrorism. The administration got absolutely no useful information as a result: they got a series a bogus leads that all turned out to be wild goose chases. And now that the use of torture is known there is no prospect of getting any criminal convictions in a real court of law.

We tried the Bush administration tactics against terrorism in the UK at the start of the Northern Ireland troubles. To say they were a disaster is an understatement. First off the troops originally went in to protect the Catholics from the Protestant terrorists. The Provisional IRA was essentially a product of the British Internment policy. And the use of aggressive interrogation techniques that fall far short of the Bush administration torture lost popular sympathy abroad, here we are talking about 'hooding', not the sleep deprevation, shaking or such that the Bushies are still using. Folk like Rudy Giuliani were so disgusted by these tactics that they headed numerous IRA fundraisers and Rudy even gave Gerry Adams a humanitarian award.

McCain is simply more of the same, he thinks that the solution to every problem is the use of more force. He is completely unable to comprehend that force might create more problems than it can solve.

Re:Pot kettle

[langelgjm]

I'd tell them to shove it and get a warrant. Especially if they used quotes around the word terrorist.

And I don't even have the benefit of permanent, in-house legal counsel, to which any government requests were almost certainly referred!

Re:Pot kettle

[Mr Z]

They don't care. They don't have to. They're the phone company.

Re:Pot kettle

[Naughty Bob]

maybe Obama feels they deserve a second chance? I mean if some scary guys in suits came to your business and demanded all your customers info for the sake of hunting "terrorists" how many people would have the balls to stand up and deny them because they know its covered by the constitution?

Okay, so does everyone get a second chance when they break the US constitution, or is this just for corporations?

Re:Pot kettle

[Martin Blank]

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.

Re:Pot kettle

[anwaya]

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?

Re:Pot kettle

[jcr]

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

One thing to keep in mind about the two wings of the Ruling Party, is that they will lament each others' abuse of power, but never take any steps to reduce the power of any federal office, because they hope to be in a position to abuse that power themselves come the next election cycle.

-jcr

Re:Pot kettle

[Rei]

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.

Re:Pot kettle

[ScrewMaster]

Hmm. Perhaps people (read: corporations) who have an entire army of lawyers at their disposal?

Hmm. Perhaps people (read: corporations) who have an entire army of congress critters at their disposal?

Actually ... you're both right.

Re:Pot kettle

[dwarg]

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.

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.

Declan has done this before

[prakslash]

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

Exaggerate much?

[Adrian Lopez]

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.

When someone has been in the senate 30 years

[Cajun Hell]

When someone serves in the Senate for 30 years, we have to..

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.

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.

How Many Left-Leaning Geeks Care

[Apple Acolyte]

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

On Biden

[Anik315]

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.

McCullagh misquoting!

[99luftballon]

Shock! Horror! Next we'll be hearing of ursine defecation in arboreal settings.

Re:The fight isn't over!

[Zeinfeld]

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.

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.

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.

Re:That's absurd.

[ThanatosMinor]

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?

Re:We are all nation states now.

[A nonymous Coward]

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.

Re:That's absurd.

[mshomphe]

Fighting terrorists is like getting hit by a woman.

*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.

Re:Phone companies aren't violating the Constituti

[ishobo]

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.

Re:If that is the case...

[A nonymous Coward]

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.

Re:That's absurd.

[sm62704]

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.