From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 00:24:54 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: May's Banal Rant
Message-ID: <199706021558.RAA27508@basement.replay.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Michael Froomkin wrote:
>I don't understand this.  Of all the alphabet soup privacy groups out
>there, EPIC is the one I consider most pro-privacy and anonymity other
>than the ACLU itself.  And EPIC knows the tech better, on the whole
>(although the ACLU is quite clued-up too).  It is true that EPIC is not
>absolutist on SAFE -- and I'm not quite sure that they are right to give
>even the inch they gave to get a mile -- but they're awfully good.
>
>Rotenburg should be a near-hero to most readers of this list.  Instead,
>canabalism.   Weird.  Very weird.

What most of us think is very weird is Rotenburg's apparent inability
to carry on a coherent dialogue.  Tim May raised several solid and
specific points.  We've got back ad hominem attacks on "libertarians".
Instead of name calling, Rotenburg would have done well to simply
justify (or change) his position.

At this point, Mr. Rotenburg and his supporters should explain exactly
what it is they do for us and how we can verify it.  "We arrived at a
compromise with the Senate" is not persuasive to most of the people on
this list.  When you believe that privacy will be promoted by hiring
more bureacrats the level of trust warranted is not high.  So, if EPIC
is doing any good, it had better be the kind of good we can monitor.

As for the ACLU, they are notoriously inconsistent when it comes to
the Constitution.  They seem to be pretty good with the First
Amendment, but that's about it.  They undermine the Second Amendment.
They campaign for welfare on the basis that it is a prerequisite for
the exercise of civil rights.  They sue aspirin manufacturers for
labelling their products in English.  They push "fair" credit laws.
Etc. Etc.

We don't need friends like the ACLU or, it appears, EPIC.

Dr. Roberts