1994-02-07 - Re: Clipper “Above the Fold”

Header Data

From: dmandl@lehman.com (David Mandl)
To: CYPHERPUNKS@toad.com
Message Hash: eea8f00ed28797c7048b8b7ba5bfed5ac8d25760cfbc39a484d9618b9e03ab97
Message ID: <9402071342.AA22956@disvnm2.lehman.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1994-02-07 13:46:19 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 7 Feb 94 05:46:19 PST

Raw message

From: dmandl@lehman.com (David Mandl)
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 94 05:46:19 PST
To: CYPHERPUNKS@toad.com
Subject: Re: Clipper "Above the Fold"
Message-ID: <9402071342.AA22956@disvnm2.lehman.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


> From: Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com>
> 
> Clipper and the Admin decision to adopt same is reported in a front page 
> (above the fold) article in the Saturday New York Times.
> 
> Usual errors about how the "backdoor" would work and about how warrants 
> would be required to get the keys.
> 
> All the usual suspects.  Good placement though.
> 
> DCF 

Unfortunately, though, it was pretty soft on Clipper.  Significantly,
the piece was not written by John Markoff, who's been covering cypherpunk-
and crypto-related issues for the Times for a while now.  Markoff has been
very friendly to "our side."  This other guy (sorry, name escapes me)
seemed to swallow the USG's line much more uncritically.  I wonder why
Markoff didn't write Saturday's piece? 

I'm not subtly suggesting conspiracy theories here, though I'm certainly
open-minded about them.  Mainly, I'm noting the difference between the two
guys' approaches and how strongly they affect the coverage.  I did a mini-
rant about the piece on my radio show Saturday.

   --Dave.





Thread