Phil Zimmermann Replies To CNet On Biden 371
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.
Sorry, (Score:1, Funny)
But this is an election. Taking statements in context has been in strict violation of the law since the Roman Republic.
Re:The actual quote (Score:2, Funny)
That's because they don't understand how to use computers, let alone how to get on the Internet.
McCullagh misquoting! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Pot kettle (Score:4, Funny)
Re:On Biden (Score:3, Funny)
"Had the Republicans taken a stronger stand on civil liberties while advocating a well regulated economy"
They would be democrats.
P.S. If you don't have economic freedom, you don't really have civil liberties. Have you ever heard someone say "they should legalize drugs and then tax and regulate them?" They might as well not say anything. I don't want to buy some government bureaucrat a limousine every-time I want some mary-jane. What is the point of that?
Why you never see articles from McCain supporters (Score:1, Funny)
> Guarantee you'll never see an article on Slashdot from a McCain supporter.
You're absolutely right. You don't get points for posting on Slashdot!
McCain Asks Supporters To Campaign On Blogs [slashdot.org]
Re:kdawson, shut up (Score:1, Funny)
Hey kdawson! Keep the posting to piss the right-tards off. It's fun to watch them froth at the mouth! lolz
Re:Pot kettle (Score:3, Funny)
Being confrontational with imposing authority is a family trait. Outward threats, of course, only make it worse. There are places for teachers, but not for bullies.
Go by the size of the armaments. (Score:3, Funny)
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?
Re:That's absurd. (Score:5, Funny)
*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:If that is the case... (Score:4, Funny)
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.