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 <cpat_private> To: <gillespieat_private> Cc: <davidnat_private>, Matthew Gaylor <freemattat_private>, Timothy May <tcmayat_private>, Ron Bailey <RBailey21at_private>, Declan McCullagh <declanat_private>, <cpat_private> 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 <jlindquiat_private> To: lettersat_private Cc: Declan McCullagh <declanat_private>, politechat_private 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, linkyat_private 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 <freemattat_private> Subject: Defeatist Compromising Commentary From Reason Magazine Cc: gillespieat_private, davidnat_private, tcmayat_private [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 <tcmayat_private> 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 <gillespieat_private> Editor-in-Chief of Reason Magazine and David Nott <davidnat_private> President, Reason Foundation.] [Reason article snipped --DBM] ************************************************************************** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freemattat_private 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/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Sep 26 2001 - 21:03:39 PDT