From: jimn8@netcom.com (Jim Nitchals)
To: jimn8@netcom.com
Message Hash: eb930a2726926e90cecd988f32f8e7fe781ca8f716545c6c9143ebb6795e13dd
Message ID: <199403010805.AAA17526@mail.netcom.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1994-03-01 08:05:09 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 1 Mar 94 00:05:09 PST
From: jimn8@netcom.com (Jim Nitchals)
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 94 00:05:09 PST
To: jimn8@netcom.com
Subject: *Time Magazine* article on Clipper
Message-ID: <199403010805.AAA17526@mail.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
(Sorry for the "from" and "to" names; I'm using elm and it just doesn't
format the headers in a way that the Cypherpunks list software's happy with)
America Online goofed, and let a preliminary description of this week's
Time magazine remain online after Time pulled an article on Clipper at
the last minute.
I've got a screen snapshot of the welcome screen containing the promo
text, as well as email from Tom Mandel, who maintains the Time Online
information. He says it was pulled due to late breaking news.
So, if Time puts out an article favorable to Clipper, and distracting
the public's attention from mandated key escrow, it might make sense
to do a little investigative journalism of our own.
Not that I'd accuse Time of knuckling under to Administration pressure
to pull the article, or making revisions based on NSA "advice."
Are EFF and CPSR doing everything possible to get media attention?
Can't the EFF hold a press conference and hand out a "Big Brother"
award to whichever congresscritter has done the most to hurt the
cause of privacy? Any of the sponsors of the FBI Wiretap bill would
do. A little heavy adverse publicity might give pause to other
critters, at least the ones up for re-election anyway.
- Jim Nitchals
Return to March 1994
Return to “jimn8@netcom.com (Jim Nitchals)”
1994-03-01 (Tue, 1 Mar 94 00:05:09 PST) - Time Magazine article on Clipper - jimn8@netcom.com (Jim Nitchals)