From: pjb@23kgroup.com (Paul J. Bell)
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 06:31:42 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: [SCARE]:  "If you only knew what we know..."
Message-ID: <9605261552.AA08814@23kgroup.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


a good idea.  what we really need to do is to obtain, by whatever means
seems available, a copy of "the briefing", and to publish it, 
on the web/net, with detail anotations of each point. having
their story in public view would certainly take away a lot of it's power.
also, on the off chance that there were any errors in their version of 
the facts, it could make for an interesting q&a session when the next
receiptent didn't buy the pitch.

	-paul
ps.. no, i don't know, right off-hand, how to obtain such a copy, 
but if the employee manual that was making the rounds a few years was
what it porported to be, well, there's hope for this document to
see the light of day. (-:


> From cypherpunks-errors@toad.com Fri May 24 18:26:04 1996
> From: Alex Strasheim <cp@proust.suba.com>
> Subject: Re: [SCARE]:  "If you only knew what we know..."
> To:cypherpunks@toad.com
> Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 01:42:53 -0500 (CDT)
> X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
> Content-Type> : > text> 
> Sender: owner-cypherpunks@toad.com
> Content-Length: 3634
> 
> > 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.
> 
>