From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 00:58:50 +0800
To: rotenberg@epic.org
Subject: Re: May's Banal Rant
In-Reply-To: <6333@lawprof.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <v03102800afb8a1339822@[207.167.93.63]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 4:14 AM -0700 6/2/97, 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.
>
>That does it.  When I get back to the US, I'm sending EPIC a donation.

Cannibalism? You overstate the level of crititcism here.

Granted, my initial thread title, "Rotenberg as the Uber Enemy," was
provocative...deliberately so. Provocative titles get attention (yes, I
congratulate Rotenberg on choosing the current thread title!).

When a leading privacy spokesman makes soothing noises on CNN about the
need to control spam by looking into how spammers gather their information,
and when CDT, EPIC, etc., have still not withdrawn their support for SAFE
despite the "use a cipher, go to prison" language, they deserve our
criticism. (In fact, CDT's latest press release on the status of SAFE makes
not a single mention of the criminalization of crypto language.)

EPIC is not being singled out for especially harsh criticism, at least not
by me. I would reserve worse criticism for CDT. (Yes, I said that EFF is
fucked up. So sue me. Fact is, EFF is a shadow of its former self, and is
missing in action on this and most other leglislative debates. Yes, I was
once a dues-paying member of the EFF, back when they were active. At least
in legislative areas, that is. All of the alphabet soupers are doing nice
work on court cases, e.g., CDA, Bernstein, etc., but the focus of the
discussion here is on SAFE and the Internet regulation proposals, not on
their lawyers.)

Frankly, we've got the alphabet soup of privacy orgs in D.C. working on
various compromises, and almost no strong voices in opposition. Or at least
the strong voices in opposition are not being quoted. Certainly neither
Cato nor the Libertarian Party are being heard widely on the SAFE and
anti-spam issues.

(I attribute this at least partly to lack of presence in D.C., lack of a
machine to crank out press releases, lack of shmoozing with the reporters.
A reporter asked me in e-mail for a comment on SAFE; she wanted to know who
I was and what my affiliation was. I told her I had no affiliation, that I
was just a guy out in Calfornia. She may have been expecting "Policy
Director, Center for Cyberspatial Liberty Studies," or somesuch. She never
got back to me. I surmise journalists and others are hung up on
officious-sounding titles, which is why every lobbyist in D.C. is either a
Policy Director or a President of something.)

In my article/rant last night I outlined why these legislative juggernauts
are rolling across America. I regret that EPIC, EFF, CDT, etc., are not
doing more to oppose them.

For my part, I'll donate to Bell's defense fund long before I'll donate to
one of the alphabet soup.

--Tim May


There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.
Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."