>At 03:48 PM 10/18/2001 -0700, Declan McCullagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>"FBI requires ISPs to permit easy surveillance; EFF founder agrees"
>http://www.politechbot.com/p-02671.html
>
>>"Stu Baker replies to Politech post on ISPs and EFF founder"
>http://www.politechbot.com/p-02672.html
>
>>From: "Baker, Stewart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: "Albertazzie, Sally"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: FBI requires ISPs to permit easy
>surveillance; EFF founder ag rees Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 14:52:52 -0400 Declan, I
>guess I ought to know what Mitch said and didn't say at this event. In fact, I took
>Mitch's remarks as an olive branch and an invitation to more civil discourse now that
>we have a keener sense of how much unites rather than divides us. He didn't say he
>was willing to abandon principle for expediency. He did say that he defines himself
>as many things, and civil liberties advocate is (just) one of them. He also said he
>is open to reconsidering his views in the aftermath of September 11. Well, who isn't?
>Only an ideologue would refuse to reconsider his views in the light of new data (or
>would accuse those who do of abandoning principles for expediency). But in fact,
>Mitch held up the civil!
liberties end of the discussion with dignity and moderation, offering a determined
argument against national id cards, for example. Stewart Baker
>
>Anyone who has given this subject much consideration knows that today's threats are
>not new and were already incorporated into informed views before September 11. No
>new threat has been identified, only fairly well known threats have been acted upon.
>No credible reasons for reconsideration of the balance of security vs. civil rights
>have been presented only propaganda. It is only the dereliction of our news media
>and government officials which has made the situation seem new to many citizens. Too
>bad military standards of justice aren't applied to all government employees.
>
>steve
