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.
Pot kettle (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Pot kettle (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmm. Perhaps people (read: corporations) who have an entire army of congress critters at their disposal?
Actually
Re:Pot kettle (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Pot kettle (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Phone companies aren't violating the Constitution (Score:5, Informative)
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:Phone companies aren't violating the Constituti (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Pot kettle (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Where's the second chances for those hurt by illegal actions? Qwest told the feds to screw themselves if they didn't have a warrant. This cost Qwest a 2 billion dollar Pentagon contract [rockymountainnews.com]. We should feel sorry and give a pass to major players in the legalized monopoly which is the telecommunications industry?
A second chance would be to claim in a trial that it wasn't their fault, it was the suits. Then if the telcos lost some lawsuit, sue the suits who asked them to knowingly break the law for whatever damag
Re:Pot kettle (Score:5, Interesting)
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. [wired.com]
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. [wired.com]
Re:Pot kettle (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Yeah, I just want to point out to all those who question whether the Pres
Re:Pot kettle (Score:4, Insightful)
One who cared about the rule of law.
Next dumb question?
Re:That's absurd. (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
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
Re:Go by the size of the armaments. (Score:4, Insightful)
Joking aside, what do you think the world community should do about a superpower that's lost its standing and is resorting to bullying in order to maintain some control in this fast-changing world? And I wasn't talking about Russia, but you're welcome to answer as if I were.
Re:Go by the size of the armaments. (Score:4, Insightful)
So...guys who say, are only using boxcutters when they try to take over a plane, we treat them as criminals?
Actually, yes. 9/11 wouldn't have happened if they just had better doors on the plane and if the pilot had a piece. Guys with boxcutters, lock the door, dive the plane and shake the terrorists about. Land. Let the cops come in. No 9/11, no need for the war(s).
But once the plane was used as a weapon, well, that's a big boy bomb, and big boy bomb rules apply.
Re:Go by the size of the armaments. (Score:4, Insightful)
Lock the door until they take hostages. Then what? Knowing what we know now, leave it closed. Back then? Tough to say.
Before anyone knew they'd be bold enough to fly planes into buildings, that door had no reason to be seriously bolted. Let's not make up a utopia where people knew it was coming, okay?
Otherwise you trivialize the decisions that would (and did) have to be made that day. Those on board Flight 93 figured it out and paid dearly -- of their own choice.
All you've pointed out is that hindsight is 20/20. Big fat duh, to you sir. Congrats. It's not a good argument for the current thread you're replying to. Try again.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:We are all nation states now. (Score:5, Insightful)
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:If that is the case... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:If that is the case... (Score:4, Insightful)
If installing a faux democracy in Iraq has reduced terrorism, why are there more terrorists in Iraq now than before under Saddam?
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 w
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 star
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 Bri
Re:That's absurd. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Pot kettle (Score:5, Insightful)
The fight isn't over! (Score:2, Insightful)
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 vot
Re:The fight isn't over! (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:The fight isn't over! (Score:4, Insightful)
You say the bill would have passed without him, like he only had a single vote to use. That is incorrect. He had a single vote, and one of the most effective bully pulpits we've seen in this country in a long time. He should have turned it into a campaign issue and beat McCain over the head with his cow towing to big corporate interests for the rest of the campaign. I was really hoping for more of a fighting spirit from the guy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He should have turned it into a campaign issue and beat McCain over the head with his cow towing to big corporate interests for the rest of the campaign.
It's probably a hard argument to make. McCain's people probably could find plenty of other bills that Obama has voted in favor of that support various corporate interests (this could probably be done for any senator) and respond with an attack ad to the effect that he's being a hypocrite and also not being tough on terrorists as well. Given that after 9/11 polls showed many (the majority?) Americans were indifferent at best about terrorist suspects being tortured I'm not sure how well Obama could counter su
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
How is that not all the more reason to proceed with the lawsuits?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I did.
The point of Karma is to weed out trolls, not to get worried about losing it. I don't think that my karma score has ever been much below 40 even when I was pointing out that we might well find out Napster's legal case was phony. There are some folk who abuse the moderation system to block unpopular points of view but they are nowhere near as big a prob
Re:Pot kettle (Score:4, Insightful)
Ignorance is one thing, getting a statement from government lawyers telling you that something is legal is something else. Even a statement from their own in-house counsel would provide some degree of protection as the FISA statute requires intent.
That is why John Yoo's torture memo was so disgusting, it quite probably gives a legal indemnity to the people who committed torture.
Fortunately, there is still a check. John Yoo became an accessory to the torture when he wrote the memo and he is not able to rely on his memo to provide him with an indemnity. It is still going to be very hard to prosecute him but not necessarily impossible.
Substituting the government lawyers for the telcos as the defendants in the wiretap case sounds like an excellent swap to me!
Re:Pot kettle (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree that multi-issue bills are a problem, but I think it's better to just not pass a mixed-bag bill than to live with the results of it.
If a majority in Congress agreed, it might keep the bills that are introduced more focused.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree that multi-issue bills are a problem, but I think it's better to just not pass a mixed-bag bill than to live with the results of it.
Unfortunately, that also makes great fodder for one's political opponents. "Look, he voted against the Ice Cream For Orphans (And Some Other Stuff) Act! Why does he hate children so much?"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They put emotional issues in those bills, like "Ban child murder", then when you vote against it, you are pro killing children.
I don't know that this is the case with this bill. I believe I heard that GWB was actually threatening to veto some other bills critical to the dems if it wasn't passed, and I think democrat party leadership was therefore exerting pressure as well.
Honestly I hate dems as much as republicans. These days I'll vote on a democrat for president, but then every single person, down the l
Re: (Score:2)
voting independent: Same as voting republican, but with no guilt...or success.
Re: (Score:3)
Then make it your platform to vote against any duplicitously-titled bill too.
Who cares. He won't be in office forever. If a bill is a good idea and it's written properly and it has widespread support, it'll eventually get passed, regardless of who's wiping who else'
Re: (Score:2)
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
Every person in that room not only had the right, but the responsibility to vote "Nay" for a bill that tacks on [more than] one blatant violation of our Bill of Rights. If there are good things that are written in a bill, but it's caked in unconstitutionality, you vote "Nay" and then write your own bill with just the good things.
Bills aren't copyrighted or patented. They don't come with EULAs, NDAs, or any DRM. In that room, they are alterable. They can, and should be fixed before being passed. Obama
Re: (Score:2)
Both issues require a Constitutional Amendment.
Line Item veto was struck down by the supreme court when it was tried before. If we're going to go through all that trouble I'd rather see the Balanced Budget Amendment.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's compare Democrats and Republicans.
DMCA 1.0 - Repub congress, Dem President (Clinton) signed on gleefully.
DMCA provisions 2.0 (slipped in the various years), about evenly split between repub/dem congresses and repub/dem presidents.
Wiretapping indemnity? Just as much the fault of both sides of the aisle.
Running roughshod over the 1st amendment? Pretty much even. Republicans and Democrats seem to hate that pesky "free speech" thing when their problems are being exposed. "Middle of the Roaders" like Joe L
Re:Pot kettle (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
A sane, rational discussion of the US-ian political spectrum????
What are you trying to do, destroy any flamewar?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
gleefully? hardly, that was a long battle. Incidentally, the intent of the DMCA is a good one.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. And the bones of those who were too enamored of their own good intentions to see the evil they were doing.
"Republicans and Democrats seem to hate that pesky "free speech" thing when their problems are being exposed."
Irrelevant. Which one passes laws to prevent it? why, it's republicans.
Funny - seems to be the Democrats being the ones trying to ramrod the old "fairness
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
did you miss the legislation that almost passed between '92 and '94?
There was one piece of legislation you should be referring to theOmnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 [wikipedia.org]. Which was fiscal responsibility at it's core, as it included both tax increases and spending decreases. It can be directly traced to the balanced budget as you can see in this 1998 CBO report 'WHAT CAUSED THE 1998 SURPLUS?--CBO'S EXPLANATION' [loc.gov]. You might find that the effect of the Republican congresses was a gain of 11 billion in spending. Many such as yourself actually credit legislative gridlock
Re: (Score:2)
Please. I'm disappointed as much as any other reasonable geek in Obama's vote, but you and I both know he didn't support indemnity, ever. He simply failed to take strong action against it and vote down a complex bill with many non-related provisions. Please stop helping politicians exaggerate every vote into an unconditional affirmation of support for every aspect of a bill.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pot kettle (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Compare that endorsement to:
"Vote for me! My principles *include* supporting authoritarian spy laws."
Not the first, not the last (Score:5, Informative)
Declan has done this before (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [wired.com] that "If it's true that Al Gore created the Internet, then I created the 'Al Gore created the Internet' story
Re:Declan has done this before (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually he is a libertarian, he once told me that he was just interested in knocking down both sides.
His original piece was classic Declan: he used references to two previous non-stories he wrote to create another non-story. The C-Net rankings he referred to were a piece he wrote himself as was his complaint about not being allowed to attend the invitation only W3C workshop on use of the Web in government.
Republican Examples? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I would hazard to say that many party-thinking followers have a problem seeing beyond "us vs. them." I'd put the Republicans right in that boat along side the Democrats.
Having said that - I realize I'm pigeon-holing the two parties firmly in "them" territory. I'm just not sure what affiliation I'm associated with to make up "us."
Re: (Score:2)
For the Dems, this is the same thing. Their worldview doesn't accomodate any political thinking more complex than us vs. them.
Some Dems, sure, but of course the same is true of many libertarians. In most of the political threads here, for example, you'll find folks saying the Democrats and Republicans are the same because they both support things like the concept of taxation. If you're not an anarcho-libertarian, you're "one of them".
That depends (Score:2)
If by "libertarian" he only cares about eliminating taxes, but doesn't care about other liberties and turns a blind eye to the moral majority legislating in our bedroom and so on. Then he's probably really just a Republican who is unwilling to call himself such.
There's a lot of them out there, people who claim to be libertarian who aren't. I don't know why? For the shock value, or they think it sounds more intellectual or something.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think he i
Exaggerate much? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Help me to understand, when regard for all senior politicians has fallen to such extreme cynicism, I wonder what sort of feasible measures would help restore trust in the politicians?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd trust them if they were dead.
Then they wouldnt be telling lies.
McCullagh was right (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably exactly what he says: "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." What's so confusing here?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What's so confusing here?
The fact that Zimmermann's on record as being against Biden's legislation, which is all that McCullagh ever said in the first place.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Neither I nor McCullagh ever said that Zimmermann disliked Biden. Seriously, re-read McCullagh's words.
Re: (Score:2)
While I'm blissfully ignorant of who this McCullagh guy is
Declan is a neat guy!
Re:McCullagh was right (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to mention:
If you get bored sometime, read Zimmermann's Senate testimony regarding Senate Bill 1726. It's lucid and eloquent, and he names names:
Now, I can totally understand something along the lines of "I believe that their positions have changed", or "I still disagree, but McCain's stance is even worse". But he cautiously backpedal against senate testimony were he says that legislation of the sort that Biden drafted "could allow such a future government to watch every move anyone makes to oppose it. It could very well be the last government we ever elect." I just don't get it. Zimmermann's always kind of been a hero of mine. What happened to make him back off so strongly?
Attributing comments (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe Phil should have digitally signed his original comment :-)
How Many Left-Leaning Geeks Care (Score:5, Interesting)
On Biden (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (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?
Re: (Score:2)
What is the point of that?
Uh, the point is that free market price + tax would still be a lot less than black market prices, and you wouldn't go to prison and lose your house if you got caught with over [insert tiny amount that means you are legally a drug dealer].
I mean sure "legal but no tax" would be better, but to get it legal you gotta make the pitch to the law makers.
Oh, and I do want some regulation like at minimum a rule that you could not cut the product with anything else, especially not tobacco, c
Republicans still lesser of evils (Score:2)
Where's Dick Armey and Jack Kemp, when you need them? When those two got out of politics, that's really when the Republican Party went to the shitter.
The thing is, the deregulation of the banking market was well intended. The Republicans wanted to see everyone who wanted to have a house, get a house. To do that required money. To get that money, without raising taxes, they allowed investment banks to get into the mortgage business. Since mortgages promise a guaranteed return on the investment to a lend
McCullagh misquoting! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Telcom immunity (Score:2)
I have been thinking about the telcom immunity issue. What they did is illegal, sure, but who is "breaking the law?"
If a police officer commands you to rob a bank, who is more criminal? You or the cop? Of course you are guilty of the crime, but the cop is the one who created the scenario and motivation. You would not have broken the law had the officer not compelled you to do so.
So, BushCo should be charged with the crime and the telcos are accessories.
I know a much better Zimmerman... (Score:2)
Youtube Channel [youtube.com]
Personal Website [royzimmerman.com]
Who? (Score:2)
I must be out of the club because I don't know who Phil Zimmerman is. And I don't know who Declan is. And I don't read CNet any more. And I don't know anything about this bill. (And I don't really care about Biden because VP is a "nothing" job, but I can't see how Biden is going to help Barack get any votes.)
I feel fine though.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
That's because they don't understand how to use computers, let alone how to get on the Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that you were able to post that comment disproves the comment.
Re: (Score:2)
How? The person you were responding to used the third person plural, not the first person plural. Ergo, it does not seem likely the person is a McCain supporter, so their posting a comment does nothing to disprove their comment.
I didn't know early mammals could use computers... (Score:2)
Let alone view Slashdot.
"Must... crawl... out of ooze... evolve lungs..."
rt
Re: (Score:2)
Sure does.. Well remember Bush and Dick vs. Gore and Clitton? Colin was in the mix too.. Who's mccain's running mate? I'm expecting someone named Abel.
Re: (Score:2)
I have to, also, but not because of anyone's name. The problem is that he chose a corrupt long-time senator, which cancels out Obama's advantage over corrupt long-time senator McCain (unless McCain also chooses a corrupt senator as his running mate).
Re: (Score:2)
Are you calling these candidates corrupt simply because they've been in the senate for a long time, or do you have some other reason to believe this. Biden was chosen because he has experience, political experience means being involved in politics for a long time. It's not fair to say that he (or McCain) is corrupt simply because he's been around a while.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm assuming you consider "corrupt long-time senator" to be synonymous with "long-time senator", and running from there; otherwise, you'd be expected to actually come up with some backing for your assertions. (Biden may have been around for a while, but he's no
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
FoxNews agrees [gawker.com]
Compare to Bayh (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe it's a good idea to have the names on his ticket invoke images of the Islamic terrorist that the Republicans failed to deal with.