From: Steven Levy <steven@echonyc.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 00:58:50 +0800
To: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Denning interview in Wired
In-Reply-To: <199608261817.LAA03556@netcom11.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.960827100044.4214E-100000@echonyc.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, 
etc.For a more comprehensive defense of her position you can go to her 
web site, where she has lotsa position papers.

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

On Mon, 26 
Aug 1996, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:

> don't recall anyone mentioning this--
> Steven Levy did a lengthy piece on Dorothy Denning for the
> recent Wired. 
> 
> any reactions?
> 
> I was personally struck at how Dorothy seems to lack strong
> convictions that hold up in the face of others. she wrote
> a paper urging that hackers be studied and worked with by
> the security community and then backed away from the position
> quickly after talking to "authorities".
> 
> 
> I was amazed that Dorothy, after a long time, has failed to
> confront some very basic issues in her advocation of 
> Clipper:
> 
> 1. constitutional issues. it would be ok for me if she described
> why she thinks that privacy is not constitutionally protected,
> but she fails to mention constitutionality issues in virtually
> any of her writings. frankly this strikes me as the utmost
> weasely evasion. is she aware of any court precedent on freedom
> of speech, freedom to speak in private etc? she never quotes
> any case law etc.
> 
> 2. she fails to address the issue of "returns vs. cost" or
> "cost/benefit" ratio. her argument amounts to an extremely
> simplistic line, "law authorities have been stymied by crypto. therefore
> it should be restricted". but this reminds me of speed limit
> advocates saying, "55 saves lives". well, how many? 35 saves lives
> over 55. the key issue is that of *compromise*: what is the optimum
> compromise?  we can catch more criminals by adding security cameras
> everywhere, but what are the costs? 
> 
> such back-and-white thinking has 
> little place in any complex policy issue, yet unfortunately tends to 
> dominate them. it's very bizarre to see an academic like Denning
> just seem to be vacuously oblivious to such simple concepts such
> as "tradeoffs". nothing I've read suggests she has ever addressed
> the issue of *compromise* in regard to catching criminals vs.
> protecting rights.
> 
> but amazingly, people like Kallstrom seem to think the same way.
> paraphrased, "if even one criminal gets away because we didn't have enough
> funding in the FBI, we need more funding in the FBI" etc.
> 
> 3. she fails to address the "big brother" issue. why is wiretapping
> never going to be used by "big brother"? it's inconceivable to me
> how she can honestly evade this issue as well. she has never addressed
> the issue of abuse by law authorities from what I can tell.
> 
> 4. Denning seems to be to be remarkably swayed by "authority figures".
> she has changed her opinion before based merely on conversations 
> with "authority figures" in the FBI and NSA. it seems maybe she has
> a bit of "spook envy" or something like that. many of her arguments
> for me essentially amount to, "people that claim to know what they
> are doing say we need [x], therefore we need [x]"
> 
> 
> well, I am not trying to start a new round of Denning-bashing 
> (although that's always fun, hee, hee) but the recent article does
> give a little new food for thought about Denning's psychology etc.
> 
> frankly I think that Denning has lost the intellectual battle because
> she absolutely fails to address some of the above key points. (particularly
> the total failure to address the constitution is getting more egregious). I 
> suggest that anyone who wants to debunk her line of thinking (which apparently
> is getting to be awfully easy) just focus on any of the above areas.
> she apparently has no reponse to these points in anything I have
> read of hers.
> 
>