Comments on Cathy Young's Reason article calling encryption "scary",
forwarded from Dave Farber's "Interesting People" list.
--- Begin Message ---
>
>From: Declan McCullagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Cathy Young's column on Reason magazine's website
>(http://www.reason.com/cy/cy092401.html) is poorly conceived and is not
>the product of careful thinking. For Young to dismiss concerns about
>broader online (and offline) eavesdropping powers as "no different" from
>the current state of affairs is misleading. Saying encryption is so
>"scary" it should be regulated does a disservice to those who have spent
>many thousands of hours pointing out the constitutional, technological,
>and economic problems associated with such a proposal. Many of those
>analyses have appeared in Reason.
>
>This is not meant to be a personal attack. Young has a history of writing
>thoughtful, provocative, and usually entirely correct articles in other
>areas (http://www.reason.com/opeds/young.html). I'm a fan of her writings
>-- but, alas, it seems that her usual acumen does not extend to this
>topic. I hope that libertarians -- especially prominent ones -- would
>think twice, and thrice, before endorsing radically expanded surveillance
>of Americans. This is a precarious time. As one left-leaning activist
>wrote to me after seeing Young's article: "Your libbie buddies need to get
>their act together. This is when stuff get serious."
>
>-Declan
>
>**********
>
>Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 20:29:36 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Charles Platt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Gaylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Timothy May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ron Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Declan McCullagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Cathy Young's Anxiety Attack
>
>Bad enough that a contributing editor to Reason should indulge in the
>cliche-ridden handwringing of a statist apologist; far worse that these
>less-than-cerebral platitudes should be disseminated via an establishment
>publication, where Ms. Young is liable to be seen as a libertarian
>emissary.
>
>To Cathy Young: All systems entail risk. As has just been demonstrated,
>a government-run system for terrorism-prevention does not eliminate risk.
>It only eliminates the superficial appearance of risk. This is far more
>dangerous than an honest approach in which risk is recognized and
>individuals are encouraged to deal with it instead of running to their
>elected representatives and asking to be protected.
>
>"A free society is not a suicide pact"? No, it's a matter of principle,
>and of courage. I really think you should reconsider your political
>affiliations.
>
>--Charles Platt
>Senior Writer, Wired magazine
>
>********
>
>Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 16:41:11 -0700
>From: Jason Lindquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Cc: Declan McCullagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: FC: Reason's C. Young: Encryption is "scary," put up with
>surveillance
>
>In our last episode, Declan McCullagh forwarded:
>
> > http://www.reason.com/cy/cy092401.html
> >
> > September 24, 2001
> > Civil liberties may take a hit
> > By Cathy Young
>
> [...]
>
> > Do I like the idea of the government intercepting e-mail? No. But, as
> > long as there's judicial oversight and due process, that's no
> > different from its longstanding power to intercept regular mail.
>
>*sigh*
>
>One would think that a publication should at least *try* to live up
>to its name.
>
>Intercepting paper postal mail tends to leave evidence that it's
>been read. The envelope has been cut open and reclosed with tape.
>Or perhaps it was steamed open and resealed... steam inevitably
>leaves odd wrinkles in the paper, and it's unlikely the new glue
>seal will line up with the old one.
>
>Intercepting paper mail also takes time and effort, substantially more
>than would be involved in any kind of scan of digital media. Somebody,
>or something, has to cut that envelope open, read its perhaps scrawled,
>barely-legible contents, reclose it, and send it back on its way.
>Never mind, surveillance of e-mail doesn't leave a trace on the message
>itself. The receiver has no way to tell if the message has been read
>by a third party or not.
>
>Due process? Recent and distant history is rife with cases where
>authorities have attempted to circumvent or flat ignore it, from the hunt
>for Communist subversives in the 1950s and 60s (well-meaning in theory,
>rabidly overzealous in execution,) to the hunt for drug traffickers and
>gang criminals in places like Los Angeles' Rampart district (well-meaning
>in theory, rabidly overzealous in execution.)
>
>Today, what possible reason do we have to expect that no one in law
>enforcement, though meaning well, will not overzealously overstep
>their boundaries? When their transgression leaves no evidence, there
>is little, if any, chance they will be discovered and penalized. What's
>to stop such a person? What assurances can we possibly have?
>
> > It is said that there are no atheists in foxholes; perhaps there are
> > no true libertarians in times of terrorist attacks.
>
>Then again, perhaps not.
>
> > Even in the Declaration of Independence, the right to liberty is
> > preceded by the right to life.
>
>Take away too much of the former, and what meaning is left in the latter?
>
>--
>Jason Lindquist <*> "Mostly though, I think it gave us hope,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] That there can always be a new beginning.
>KB9LCL Even for people like us."
> -- Gen. Susan Ivanova, B5, "Sleeping In Light"
>
>**********
>
>Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 19:15:34 -0400
>From: Matthew Gaylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Defeatist Compromising Commentary From Reason Magazine
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>[Note from Matthew Gaylor: Again more defeatist compromising
>commentary. Reason Magazine's contributing editor Cathy Young writes: "Do
>I like the idea of people being able to encrypt electronic communications
>so that they are beyond surveillance? Frankly, I found it scary even
>before Sept. 11 - precisely because of the threat of terrorism. It is said
>that there are no atheists in foxholes; perhaps there are no true
>libertarians in times of terrorist attacks. Even in the Declaration of
>Independence, the right to liberty is preceded by the right to life." In
>this case I found Cypherpunk Tim May's <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sarcastic comment
>right on the money. Tim writes: "Between Cato arguing for victim
>disarmament and Reason arguing that "right to liberty is preceded by the
>right to life," I say we just kill them all and let Rand sort them
>out." If you find Ms. Young's comments against encryption disturbing
>please write to Nick Gillespie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Editor-in-Chief of
>Reason Magazine and David Nott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> President, Reason
>Foundation.]
>
>[Reason article snipped --DBM]
>
>**************************************************************************
>Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
>Send a blank message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words subscribe FA
>on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
>Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/
>**************************************************************************
>
>
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
>You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
>Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
>To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
>This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--- End Message ---
--
Perry E. Metzger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
"Ask not what your country can force other people to do for you..."
