From: Alex Strasheim <cp@proust.suba.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 06:58:29 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: [NOISE] Re: Dorothy Denning attacks Leahy's crypto bill
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960321180535.24730A-100000@polaris.mindport.net>
Message-ID: <199603220237.UAA01376@proust.suba.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text


> It's even deeper than this really.  Opponents of the bill say it says X.  
> Supporters of the bill say it says Y.  The bill actually sounds more like 
> X than Y.  There is very little incentive to make the bill anything like 
> Y.  The bill could probably be a straight forward X and still pass.

This will probably be unpopular, but:

There has been a defacto toleration of some cheap arguments in many online
forums dedicated to crypto discussions, including this one.  People who
agree with us are brave freedom fighters, and our enemies are evil people
who want to take everyone's freedoms away. 

There are honest, intelligent, and well informed people on both sides of
the Leahy bill here on this list.  We are appalled, rightfully so, when
Schneier, Blaze, et al are smeared by anonymous posts dencouncing their
characters and calling for mailbombings.  But we shouldn't be surprised --
those tactics have been used repeatedly during the larger crypto debate.
Remember when Bizdos was the anti-christ?

I think we'd all be better off if people like Denning felt that they could
come online and mix it up with the rest of us without worrying about being
shouted down or harassed.  I remember when she used to answer questions on
sci.crypt with some regularlity.  Say what you want about her politics, 
she wrote a good crypto textbook and she's good at teaching.  There'd be 
more people who know their crypto if she was still hanging around.

Arguing exclusively against straw men isn't good for us.  It lets us 
slide by with weaker arguments than good opponents would coax from us, 
and it hurts our ability to repsond effectively to their arguments.

Crypto technology is going to effect society in lots of ways, some blunt
and others subtle.  It's complicated stuff, and intelligent people can 
disagree without being evil or in cahoots with the forces of tyranny.  
There's a line from an old Neil Young song -- even Richard Nixon has got 
soul.  Well, so does Dorothy Denning, and so do the people at the NSA, 
and the management at AT&T.

Those who would restrict crypto are wrong, and if they prevail in the
debate they will do a lot of damage, and yes, they will end up depriving 
us of a big part of our liberty.  But to them *we* are doing a lot of 
damage -- we're creating a dangerous and lawless world where personal 
safety will be nothing but a dim memory.

Who's right?  How can you tell?  With an open and honest debate between
their best people and ours.  I am absolutely certain that we would prevail
in such a debate.  But we can't get together to stage such a thing -- here
on our home turf they're not welcome, and we're certainly not welcome at
the security briefings, or whatever it is they call it when the feds lobby
lawmakers about crypto issues. 

I do not mean to imply that any of the leading figures here on cypherpunks
stoop to character assination and harassment.  But there has been what
seems to me to be an effort to romanticize the issue, create a sort of
counter-culture fervor.  There is a tendency to shout and protest rather
than to argue and persuade.  Unthinking intolerance of dissent is common
among a lot of the transient people on the list, as is a bias against
people affiliated with large companies.

All I'm suggesting is that the next time somone get creamed for saying 
something unpopular, that maybe we should defend their right to say it, 
as long as they say it well and honestly.