No Subject

> "In a Time/CNN poll of 1,000 Americans conducted last week by Yankelovich
> Partners, two-thirds said it was more important to protect the privacy of
> phone calls than to preserve the ability of police to conduct wiretaps.
> When informed about the Clipper Chip, 80% said they opposed it."

Reminds me of the hilarious "How to lie with statistics". What 1000 Americans?
The sort who read Time magazine? These are probably much more likely to be
against Clipper anyway. Any Joe 6-packs? Probably not.

"When informed" - what, and how was the information presented? Clipper can be
described as an NSA plot to listen in to everyone. Or a measure against 
drug dealers and mafia that happens to provide more privacy to everyone using
ordinary phones at the moment.

It's not a good idea to take this debate to the ordinary public. The Congress,
yes, Time readers, yes, but not Joe 6-pack, who quite happily gave up his gun is
not likely to be concerned about principles of privacy. Particularly as an open
debate could easily swing towards, and focus on, possible and current misuses 
of crypto technology, rather than any benefits. Joe is not as untrusting of 
governments as cpunks are, nor is he likely to appreciate digicash, anon 
posting or the Blacknet article.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rishab Aiyer Ghosh                            "What is civilisation
rishab@doe.ernet.in, rishab@dxm.ernet.in        but a ribonucleic
Voicemail +91 11 3760335; Vox/Fax/Data 6853410      hangover?"
H-34C Saket New Delhi 110017 INDIA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

> 
> Reminds me of the hilarious "How to lie with statistics". What 1000 Americans?
> The sort who read Time magazine? These are probably much more likely to be
> against Clipper anyway. Any Joe 6-packs? Probably not.
> 
From what I know, most of these surveys are conducted by random dialing.  
It's much more compilcated than that though.  
                   _  .  _ ___ _  .  _
===-|)/\\/|V|/\/\ (_)/_\|_|\_/(_)/_\|_| Stop by for an excursion into the-===
===-|)||| | |\/\/  mud.crl.com 8888 (_) Virtual Bay Area!                -===

rishab@dxm.ernet.in writes:
 > It's not a good idea to take this debate to the ordinary public...
 > Time readers, yes...

Well, if "Time readers" aren't the ordinary public, then I give up.

--
| GOOD TIME FOR MOVIE - GOING ||| Mike McNally <m5@tivoli.com>       |
| TAKE TWA TO CAIRO.          ||| Tivoli Systems, Austin, TX:        |
|     (actual fortune cookie) ||| "Like A Little Bit of Semi-Heaven" |

m5@vail.tivoli.com (Mike McNally) writes: 

> rishab@dxm.ernet.in writes:
>  > It's not a good idea to take this debate to the ordinary public...
>  > Time readers, yes...
> 
> Well, if "Time readers" aren't the ordinary public, then I give up.

This reminds me...Several years ago I head a quote attributed to
Nelson Rockefeller (then Gov. of NY) at a meeting where he said something
like "Take your average American making around $75,000 a year..."

-James

James Hicks says:
> > Well, if "Time readers" aren't the ordinary public, then I give up.
> 
> This reminds me...Several years ago I head a quote attributed to
> Nelson Rockefeller (then Gov. of NY) at a meeting where he said something
> like "Take your average American making around $75,000 a year..."

Time readers are not ordinary Americans in so far as they can
generally read.

More seriously, its true that the average Time reader is probably far
better educated than the average American. However, "Time" is hardly
some deep highbrow publication. Time is just a half notch over
People. It bears the same resemblance to a real news source that
Velveeta bears to cheese.

In any case, the individuals in question were not Time readers; it was
just a random sample poll commissioned by Time and CNN.

Perry

rishab@dxm.ernet.in says:
> 
> > "In a Time/CNN poll of 1,000 Americans conducted last week by Yankelovich
> > Partners, two-thirds said it was more important to protect the privacy of
> > phone calls than to preserve the ability of police to conduct wiretaps.
> > When informed about the Clipper Chip, 80% said they opposed it."
> 
> Reminds me of the hilarious "How to lie with statistics". What 1000
> Americans?  The sort who read Time magazine? These are probably much
> more likely to be against Clipper anyway. Any Joe 6-packs? Probably
> not.

You are displaying not inconsiderable ignorance about Time magazine
and about such polls.  "Time" isn't terribly highbrow -- we aren't
talking "The Economist". Furthermore, Time/CNN polls are random sample
phone polls conducted by random sample by a fairly prestigious polling
company and simply stuck with the Time/CNN "brand name". Those polled
would not have been "Time" readers. Although you are correct in your
later assertion that the information may have been presented in a
slanted manner, it is likely that the sampling and statistical
techniques were rigorous.

Perry

rishab@dxm.ernet.in writes:
> Reminds me of the hilarious "How to lie with statistics". What 1000 Americans?
> The sort who read Time magazine? These are probably much more likely to be
> against Clipper anyway. Any Joe 6-packs? Probably not.
...
> It's not a good idea to take this debate to the ordinary public. The Congress,
> yes, Time readers, yes, but not Joe 6-pack, who quite happily gave up his gun is
> not likely to be concerned about principles of privacy. Particularly as an open

_Time_ readers *are* Joe 6-pack.  Or close enough as makes no
difference.  Maybe _People_ or _USA Today_ readers are a better
approximation, but the circulation of _Time_ is so large that 80% of
it is enough to derail any political campaign.

Lyle		Transarc		707 Grant Street
412 338 4474	The Gulf Tower		Pittsburgh 15219

"Gossip is what makes the world go round. I have very few secrets.
 I would be deeply concerned if a device were marketed that could stop 
 interception..."          Emma Nicholson, MP.