From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 20:04:20 +0800
To: Ted Garrett <teddygee@visi.net>
Subject: Re: Anonymous Cpunk Bashing
Message-ID: <m0u2vEJ-0008xSC@pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 01:29 AM 3/30/96 -0500, Ted Garrett wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>At 01:06 PM 3/29/96 -0800, you wrote:
>>The implication is that the people who oppose this "list of shame" are doing 
>>so primarily for PERSONALITY reasons, rather than on the issues.  I would 
>>feel better about the whole thing if the people who volunteered for the list 
>>had engaged in some sort of serious effort to show that the placement of the 
>>other people on that list was unjustified.  Lacking even the most 
>>rudimentary effort along these lines, I really wonder who (and what) these 
>>people think they're supporting.
>
>I think that sometimes, one's cumulative reputation must count for something.
>Most of the people who are included in this 'list of shame' have contributed
>enormously to the furtherance of the crypto field in general.  Whether I conscribe
>to their viewpoints or not on a given subject, it is rather easy for me to think
>of something they have written which I use as a rather concrete reference.  Thusly,
>given a track record of open and noteworthy thought on the field, I find it difficult
>to denounce, as an example, Bruce Schneier.  Especially IF it's only a matter of
>sharing a difference of opinion on a given bill or set of bills before our lawmakers.
>
>Considering the fact that I've not seen Mr. Schneier come out on either side of the
>Leahy Bill or,

He's one of the people I haven't seen respond to the Leahy bill, as well.  
However, I don't regularly read SCI.CRYPT or much else  that he may put his 
comments on, and I don't recall if he commented here.  That's one of the 
reasons to be suspicious of the motivations behind the "list of shame," 
however there's good reason to be even  more suspicious of those who have 
rushed to debunk it by "standing behind" all those listed, with no 
distinction.    I think it is obvious that at least a few people listed 
should have been listed, but the majority I simply don't know about.  I 
wouldn't be surprised if at least one of those anonymous messages 
deliberately loaded up the list  with unworthy targets simply to disguise 
the ones who ought to be listed.


> for that matter, many of the other bills currently before the congress,
>it's hard for me to support mail-bombing him or many of the others on the list