1996-08-27 - Re: Denning interview in Wired

Header Data

From: “Vladimir Z. Nuri” <vznuri@netcom.com>
To: Steven Levy <steven@echonyc.com>
Message Hash: 5d5dab5fbd88bf7d3bda11c6b79235245b34a2e033a230e80459abceb863bd69
Message ID: <199608271723.KAA23960@netcom23.netcom.com>
Reply To: <Pine.SOL.3.91.960827100044.4214E-100000@echonyc.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-08-27 21:52:00 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 05:52:00 +0800

Raw message

From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 05:52:00 +0800
To: Steven Levy <steven@echonyc.com>
Subject: Re: Denning interview in Wired
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.91.960827100044.4214E-100000@echonyc.com>
Message-ID: <199608271723.KAA23960@netcom23.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

>This was not an interview, but an article.  Though all quotes are 
>accurate (and checked with the source) it was me who did the choosing, so 
>it's really not fair to fault Dorothy for not addressing issues x and y, 

hey, cut me some slack. you did specifically "interview" her for the article,
(I'm remembering the part where you say
you pressed for details about how clipper would improve the world, and
she came back talking about how she got locked out of a swim locker in 
her wet bathing suit, hee, hee). it's not an interview in the sense that 
you are  directly quoting her the whole article, but I'd say it would be
fair to call it an interview. article, whatever, I don't care.

also, I was not claiming that Denning failed to address particular
issues in the article alone (which I agree would not be totally
fair, with only one "sample"). I've read a lot of her writing and
talking and am pointing out that she doesn't volunteer any info
on the points I mentioned (constitutionality etc.) in general, 
even when pressed, and that your article fits into suggesting this pattern 
of evasion of certain points on her part. 

did she talk to you about any of the issues I mentioned in 
my post? if so, I would have suspected you would have included them
in the article. in any case, even on her own and when directly
challenged, she avoids the key issues I mentioned to a degree that
for me approaches intellectual sloppiness or even dishonesty. 

the article imho correctly
conveys the reality that Denning, even after being the poster-girl
for Clipper, wiretapping, and key escrow, has failed to take into
account or address the key devastating counterpoints of her opposition, and 
still at this late date has great difficulty explaining why "all the above"
is a good thing and desirable, despite endless opportunity to boil
her stance into effective soundbites.

>For a more comprehensive defense of her position you can go to her 
>web site, where she has lotsa position papers.

fair enough. I challenge anyone to show how she's addressed the
points I mentioned. I'm simply pointing out a pattern I've noticed
in her thinking of which your own article is another confirmation,
but not the sole basis for the claim.

>Incidentally, I didn't set out to rehash the Clipper issues in the 
>article, but to try to give some insight into Dorothy herself. 

which you did. that's why I said in my post, it gives interesting
fodder for psychogical insights of Denning's position.

I don't know why you seem to be defensive about the article
in your response when I said nothing critical of your own role.

I guess I didn't make it clear I thought it was a fine
article and thought you did a commendable job, and I've always
been a big fan, if you care about my opinion in the matter <g>

there are other places in the article where I do sense a bit of a 
subtle bias against Denning, especially in the last paragraph, but
overall I thought it was very objective. it seems to me it would
be hard to write an objective article about Denning that didn't
raise doubts in the readers mind (i.e. by carefully avoiding all
mention of her opponents etc.)