RE: Moral Crypto isn't wuss-ninnie.
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Eric Cordian Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 6:05 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Moral Crypto isn't wuss-ninnie. Aimee writes: I realize Tim's position, and I respect his right to express his political opinions and ideas, even though I don't agree with them, and think he is a self-identifying flamboyant jackass. I understand that many of you have the same opinions, and likewise Guess not all Lying Feminist Cunts troll Sex Abuse exclusively. yawn -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law I am not a Feminist. ~Aimee
Re: Moral Crypto isn't wuss-ninnie.
Aimee writes: I realize Tim's position, and I respect his right to express his political opinions and ideas, even though I don't agree with them, and think he is a self-identifying flamboyant jackass. I understand that many of you have the same opinions, and likewise Guess not all Lying Feminist Cunts troll Sex Abuse exclusively. yawn -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law
Re: Moral Crypto isn't wuss-ninnie.
On Tuesday, September 4, 2001, at 05:26 PM, Aimee Farr wrote: A potential balance between national security and science may lie in an agreement to include in the peer review process (prior to the start of research and prior to the publication) the question of potential harm to the nation I believe it is necessary before significant harm does occur which could well prompt the federal government to overreact. -- Inman, '82. --- It is not wuss-ninnie to spark debate, or to examine characterizations and motives. Many say, technology is neutral. It's not. Technology is CONTEXTUAL. Somebody is going to use it for something, and that's usually somebody and something in particular. Most of you would agree that surveillance researchers failed to consider and address the moral and societal implications of surveillance technologies. That, too many said, was somebody else's problem. Now, it's *our* problem. Had they looked into motivations and societal factors, we would have had more lead time to deal with improper surveillance and secondary use issues. We are in this position today because they were wuss-ninnies. Nonsense. None of the current moral and societal implications of surveillance technologies are either new or unexplored. From Bentham to Huxley to Orwell to Donner (The Age of Surveillance, 1980) to Brin (The Transparent Society, c. 1996), the implications have been explored in gory detail. The notion that these implications would be avoided or handled by submitting all research proposals to Inman's oversight board is naive in the extreme. Inman's board, had the Constitution even allowed such oversight of private actor activities, would have killed RSA in the womb, would have blocked PGP, and would have put the kibosh on remailersbut would have endorsed surveillance cams in football stadiums. If the benefits outweigh the costs, then fine -- but show me that you thought about it, and considered what other people might have to say, even if you might not agree with them (or me). I'm glad you have political ideas and theories of how it's going to all work outbut it often doesn't work out the way you think, or want it to. I've been reading and thinking about these issues since I was a kid. All of the above authors I've read, plus a whole shelf full (Declan and Lucky can attest to this) of other such books. Laqueur. Kwitny, Richelson, Bamford, Wise, Kahn, and dozens of other works touching on surveillance, secrecy, terror states, espionage, and on and on. But we don't have to justify to _you_ that we have read academic works or thought about the issues to then press for there being no Inman-style reviews of research, no Lincoln-style suspensions of habeas corpus, not statist-style restrictions on liberty in the name of fighting our endless enemies. I realize Tim's position, and I respect his right to express his political opinions and ideas, even though I don't agree with them, and think he is a self-identifying flamboyant jackass. I understand that many of you have the same opinions, and likewise Agent Farr, you need a new gig. --Tim May
RE: Moral Crypto isn't wuss-ninnie.
On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Aimee Farr wrote: It is not wuss-ninnie to spark debate, or to examine characterizations and motives. Many say, technology is neutral. It's not. Technology is CONTEXTUAL. Ah, another convert. See, The message is the medium isn't right after all...it takes message, medium, context. I hope Marshall's spinnin' in his grave ;) -- natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
RE: Moral Crypto isn't wuss-ninnie.
A potential balance between national security and science may lie in an agreement to include in the peer review process (prior to the start of research and prior to the publication) the question of potential harm to the nation I believe it is necessary before significant harm does occur which could well prompt the federal government to overreact. -- Inman, '82. --- It is not wuss-ninnie to spark debate, or to examine characterizations and motives. Many say, technology is neutral. It's not. Technology is CONTEXTUAL. Somebody is going to use it for something, and that's usually somebody and something in particular. Most of you would agree that surveillance researchers failed to consider and address the moral and societal implications of surveillance technologies. That, too many said, was somebody else's problem. Now, it's *our* problem. Had they looked into motivations and societal factors, we would have had more lead time to deal with improper surveillance and secondary use issues. We are in this position today because they were wuss-ninnies. If the benefits outweigh the costs, then fine -- but show me that you thought about it, and considered what other people might have to say, even if you might not agree with them (or me). I'm glad you have political ideas and theories of how it's going to all work outbut it often doesn't work out the way you think, or want it to. In my opinion, to characterize a technology as having aims detrimental to national security interests is both irresponsible and foolish. Words and events shape public policy -- why shape it against you? I realize Tim's position, and I respect his right to express his political opinions and ideas, even though I don't agree with them, and think he is a self-identifying flamboyant jackass. I understand that many of you have the same opinions, and likewise ~Aimee
