From: Alex Strasheim <cp@proust.suba.com>
Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 18:37:08 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: [SCARE]:  "If you only knew what we know..."
In-Reply-To: <199605240352.UAA01260@mail.pacifier.com>
Message-ID: <199605240642.BAA00623@proust.suba.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text


> Patel is then likely to be given the *in camera* presentation
> of The Deepest Darkest Secrets of Cryptography -- probably a modified
> version of the classifed briefing the NSA has used with great success to
> influence members of Congress. Legend has it that no one who ever got 'the
> briefing' ever again opposed the agency." 

The last part reminds me of the Monty Python bit about the funniest joke
in the world -- during the war Brittish soldiers would shout out a
translated version they couldn't understand and the Germans would die
laughing.  It seems pretty obvious that there are people who have
withstood the NSA's siren song -- people in Congress and agencies like the
Department of Commerce (who presumably have heard it) oppose the agency. 

I've felt for a long time that the division in venues has hurt us.  The
other side pitches in secret to Congressmen and administration officials,
while we preach to the converted and argue against straw men here on the
net.  As a consequence they own official Washington and we own public
opinion. 

The problem with this is that we don't get a chance to refute their 
arguments.  I think we're right -- and to me believing we're right means 
beliving that we can win a fair fight.  Logic and the facts ought to bear 
us out.

One idea that I toyed around with but was too lazy to pursue was to have a
public debate on the web.  A small group of people would be invited to
participate -- maybe Dr. Denning on one side, and whoever else we could
find to speak for the government.  We could pick an equal number of our
best people to go up against them. 

The debate would proceed in rounds.  Each particpant could write his or
her arguments for or against government restrictions on crypto, and the
moderator would publish them all simultaneously.  Then there would a set 
period of time for the participants to write responses -- maybe a couple 
of days or a week.  Then another round of responses to the responses.  
After that everyone could write closing arguments.

I think there are a couple of advantages to taking this sort of an
approach rather than a more free form discussion on a mail list.  The
first is that the other side would probably feel more welcome -- the lack
of public support for their position and the net being what it is have
combined to create a hostile environment for those who disagree with us. 
The debate would prevent personal attacks (if we pick the right
participants) and it would give the opposition some assurances that they
won't get shouted down.  The idea is to create a level playing field --
something that doesn't exist anywhere right now -- each side has it's own
home court, but a neutral space doesn't seem to exist.

Another advantage would be that if people agree to particpate they'd
probably take it seriously enough to follow through and answer criticisms
of their arguments.  The idea of a formal discussion with a beginning, a
middle, and an end might help keep things moving along.  Restricting
things to a small number of participants who understand the technology and
the history of crypto politics could also be helpful.

Finally, when the whole thing was over the web site would be a valuable 
resource for anyone who wants to explore the issue.  Both sides would be 
there nobody would feel that they had been bullied or manipulated into 
believing one thing or another.

As I said above, I think we're right, and to me that means believing that
we'd come out on top in a fair fight.  It seems to me that we ought to
figure out how to set up a few of them and do whatever we can to get the
other side to show up.