5 expanded posts ยท every known parent and child
In the 21-Mar-94 issue of Computerworld p.4 the following statment is attributed to Donn Parker of SRI, "We have to make strong, nonescrow encryption a crime". I do not remember Parker making a statement like this previously, is this a new position for Parker or is my memory going bad? Fred
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > In the 21-Mar-94 issue of Computerworld p.4 the following statment is > attributed to Donn Parker of SRI, "We have to make strong, nonescrow > encryption a crime". I do not remember Parker making a statement like > this previously, is this a new position for Parker or is my memory > going bad? He is quoted in the March issue of Scientific American as saying ``You can't have absolute privacy. A democracy just can't operate that way.'' (page 101) The article goes on to say The question is not whether cyberspace will be subjected to legislation but rather ``how and when law and order will be imposed,'' Parker says. He predicts that the current state of affairs will get much worse before the government steps in ``to assure privacy and to protect the rights people do have.'' I was so incensed that I began writing him a letter questioning this. I might have carried through, but I couldn't find an email address for him right away. (Anyone have it handy?) His attitude reminds me of claims by DERD & Co. (love that new designator! what does the R stand for?) that ``if you knew what I know, you too would favor government surveillance''. You write almost as if you are surprised that he in particular would express these positions. I was unaware of his existence before reading this Scientific American piece, so I had no preconceived notions. Why were you surprised? John E. Kreznar | Relations among people to be by jkreznar@ininx.com | mutual consent, or not at all. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLY+VbMDhz44ugybJAQHXXgP8CtmWmGKRtkH0NQP82BvEn2HKA4yETXGw /1ztpQncJ/joInhIacuuGYLuPqf3q4ahBRWBa4l2+KHvn2f5Epsb71i2DUsTt/DT QQdxsUEX5DfeX4JFd0yVceYCkeC0Pd4yCXYlFy6xwl/HYgyQjtnx7F+97+XiWjNi VHvXjZo26n8= =ilkn -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
You could try dparker@sri.com. I don't know if thats the right dparker or not, but its worth a try. 250 CRVAX.SRI.COM I knew you could! Hello SPL.BWH.HARVARD.EDU expn dparker 250- <10966@CRVAX.SRI.COM> 250 CRVAX.SRI.COM OK. vrfy fake-user 551-Error=0400801A 551-Unable to find user fake-user 551-Unable to find user FAKE-USER | > In the 21-Mar-94 issue of Computerworld p.4 the following statment is | > attributed to Donn Parker of SRI, "We have to make strong, nonescrow | I was so incensed that I began writing him a letter questioning this. I | might have carried through, but I couldn't find an email address for him | right away. (Anyone have it handy?) His attitude reminds me of claims Adam -- Adam Shostack adam@bwh.harvard.edu Politics. From the greek "poly," meaning many, and ticks, a small, annoying bloodsucker. Have you signed the anti-Clipper petition?
>You write almost as if you are surprised that he in particular would >express these positions. I was unaware of his existence before reading >this Scientific American piece, so I had no preconceived notions. Why >were you surprised? Exactly. Parker has been in the computer security field for a long time, and he is well known for expressing views that can be best described as ultra-conservative and extremely authoritarian. These comments of his are about as surprising as those of George Bush calling for the reversal of Roe v Wade. But so what? The man is entitled to his opinions. Rather than jump on him for expressing them, perhaps you should disseminate them as widely as possible. I can't think of a much better way to rally the opposition to Clipper. Remember that the power to counter things like Clipper is already in your hands. Don't let people like Parker just get you mad. Get even - write code! Phil
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > But so what? The man is entitled to his opinions. Rather than jump on > him for expressing them, perhaps you should disseminate them as widely > as possible. I can't think of a much better way to rally the > opposition to Clipper. I agree. When I wrote that I was ``incensed'', I meant in the sense of ``excited'', not ``angry''. I genuinely want to question him (not ``jump on him'') in an effort to better understand how he justifies to himself opinions that you and I find so offensive. This may provide even more incriminating revelations for dissemination. > Remember that the power to counter things like Clipper is already in > your hands. Don't let people like Parker just get you mad. Get even - > write code! Yep! John E. Kreznar | Relations among people to be by jkreznar@ininx.com | mutual consent, or not at all. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLZDQp8Dhz44ugybJAQHgPQP/WWLzTwkzY4WWon8ByvBDODbJZsTockad TeQVQPlaW633vkoVKcO4LzmbT/ri5509mWA8oD6JIAlwcjsCou7jWGy/IifTPAT3 695onoCoMIKqiAFUe6+NfddBqZw2cstYzIHcf7ulvLakvZMc8vsfKkuEjq8GH4y6 1auKv0iUNSw= =k5y2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----