From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 14:11:20 +0800
To: Joe Shea <joeshea@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: White House crypto proposal -- too little, too late
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9610020942.A12604-0100000@netcom17>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.961002095501.29327C-100000@well.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Joe, you submitted three pieces in roughly so many days to
fight-censorship-announce, with is a moderated announcement-only
mailing list that I send one or two pieces to each day. With some rare
exceptions (like feedback I got on my anti-Net-univ-service rant) I
don't pass along comments.

If you want to distribute them to the discussion list, address them to
fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu instead. Perhaps you should join that
list. It gets about 15 messages a day.

But don't blame me for your own cluelessness. RTFM instead of whining.

-Declan

PS: Freedom of speech includes the right not to speak. If I choose not
to publish your stuff, my right to do so is protected under the First
Amendment. Don't like it? Start your own
Joe-Shea's-wacko-views-on-First-Amendment-jurisprudence mailing list
instead. I'll even help you set it up.


On Wed, 2 Oct 1996, Joe Shea wrote:

> Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 09:47:59 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Joe Shea <joeshea@netcom.com>
> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
> Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com
> Subject: Re: White House crypto proposal -- too little, too late
> 
> 
> 
> 	Declan, how does your list work?  Do you only publish comments 
> that agree with you?  I didn't see my first two, and this one only came 
> with your response.  Is this your version of freedom of the press, or what?
> 
> Joe Shea
> Editor-in-Chief
> The American Reporter
> joeshea@netcom.com
> http://www.newshare.com:9999
> 
> 
> On Wed, 2 Oct 1996, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 20:19:16 -0700 (PDT)
> > From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
> > To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu
> > Cc: joeshea@netcom.com
> > Subject: Re: White House crypto proposal -- too little, too late
> > 
> > [Joe, this may be yet another area where we disagree. It represents a
> > power grab by law enforcement; the infrastructure is prone to failure
> > and can be compromised; it's more government meddling and coercion and
> > more restrictions on free speech; the Fed bureaucrats controlling this
> > are vulnerable to special-interest lobbying; the Constitution gives
> > the Federal government no right to impose such restrictions; the FBI
> > has demonstrated that we can't trust the Feds with our most personal
> > information; it violates an absolute right to privacy; and it's
> > technically impractical for a good number of applications. --Declan]
> > 
> > 
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 15:57:51 -0700 (PDT)
> > From: Joe Shea <joeshea@netcom.com>
> > To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
> > Cc: fight-censorship
> > Subject: Re: FC: White House crypto proposal -- too little, too late
> > 
> > 
> > 	Declan's most recent piece makes much more sense than the earlier
> > one.  He is quite correct in emphasizing the future vulnerability of the
> > encryption logarithms rather than centering on whether or not terrorists
> > might use them.  By making them impossible to crack without the key, and
> > permitting the key to be available to appropriate law enforcement
> > authorities when absolutely necessary, everyone's real needs are 
> > satisfied, I think.  I enjoyed this report a lot.
> > 
> > Best,
> > 
> > Joe Shea
> > Editor-in-Chief
> > The American Reporter
> > joeshea@netcom.com
> > http://www.newshare.com:9999
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
>