Denning interview in Wired

don't recall anyone mentioning this--
Steven Levy did a lengthy piece on Dorothy Denning for the
recent Wired. 

any reactions?

I was personally struck at how Dorothy seems to lack strong
convictions that hold up in the face of others. she wrote
a paper urging that hackers be studied and worked with by
the security community and then backed away from the position
quickly after talking to "authorities".


I was amazed that Dorothy, after a long time, has failed to
confront some very basic issues in her advocation of 
Clipper:

1. constitutional issues. it would be ok for me if she described
why she thinks that privacy is not constitutionally protected,
but she fails to mention constitutionality issues in virtually
any of her writings. frankly this strikes me as the utmost
weasely evasion. is she aware of any court precedent on freedom
of speech, freedom to speak in private etc? she never quotes
any case law etc.

2. she fails to address the issue of "returns vs. cost" or
"cost/benefit" ratio. her argument amounts to an extremely
simplistic line, "law authorities have been stymied by crypto. therefore
it should be restricted". but this reminds me of speed limit
advocates saying, "55 saves lives". well, how many? 35 saves lives
over 55. the key issue is that of *compromise*: what is the optimum
compromise?  we can catch more criminals by adding security cameras
everywhere, but what are the costs? 

such back-and-white thinking has 
little place in any complex policy issue, yet unfortunately tends to 
dominate them. it's very bizarre to see an academic like Denning
just seem to be vacuously oblivious to such simple concepts such
as "tradeoffs". nothing I've read suggests she has ever addressed
the issue of *compromise* in regard to catching criminals vs.
protecting rights.

but amazingly, people like Kallstrom seem to think the same way.
paraphrased, "if even one criminal gets away because we didn't have enough
funding in the FBI, we need more funding in the FBI" etc.

3. she fails to address the "big brother" issue. why is wiretapping
never going to be used by "big brother"? it's inconceivable to me
how she can honestly evade this issue as well. she has never addressed
the issue of abuse by law authorities from what I can tell.

4. Denning seems to be to be remarkably swayed by "authority figures".
she has changed her opinion before based merely on conversations 
with "authority figures" in the FBI and NSA. it seems maybe she has
a bit of "spook envy" or something like that. many of her arguments
for me essentially amount to, "people that claim to know what they
are doing say we need [x], therefore we need [x]"


well, I am not trying to start a new round of Denning-bashing 
(although that's always fun, hee, hee) but the recent article does
give a little new food for thought about Denning's psychology etc.

frankly I think that Denning has lost the intellectual battle because
she absolutely fails to address some of the above key points. (particularly
the total failure to address the constitution is getting more egregious). I 
suggest that anyone who wants to debunk her line of thinking (which apparently
is getting to be awfully easy) just focus on any of the above areas.
she apparently has no reponse to these points in anything I have
read of hers.

This was not an interview, but an article.  Though all quotes are 
accurate (and checked with the source) it was me who did the choosing, so 
it's really not fair to fault Dorothy for not addressing issues x and y, 
etc.For a more comprehensive defense of her position you can go to her 
web site, where she has lotsa position papers.

Incidentally, I didn't set out to rehash the Clipper issues in the 
article, but to try to give some insight into Dorothy herself. 

On Mon, 26 
Aug 1996, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:

> don't recall anyone mentioning this--
> Steven Levy did a lengthy piece on Dorothy Denning for the
> recent Wired. 
> 
> any reactions?
> 
> I was personally struck at how Dorothy seems to lack strong
> convictions that hold up in the face of others. she wrote
> a paper urging that hackers be studied and worked with by
> the security community and then backed away from the position
> quickly after talking to "authorities".
> 
> 
> I was amazed that Dorothy, after a long time, has failed to
> confront some very basic issues in her advocation of 
> Clipper:
> 
> 1. constitutional issues. it would be ok for me if she described
> why she thinks that privacy is not constitutionally protected,
> but she fails to mention constitutionality issues in virtually
> any of her writings. frankly this strikes me as the utmost
> weasely evasion. is she aware of any court precedent on freedom
> of speech, freedom to speak in private etc? she never quotes
> any case law etc.
> 
> 2. she fails to address the issue of "returns vs. cost" or
> "cost/benefit" ratio. her argument amounts to an extremely
> simplistic line, "law authorities have been stymied by crypto. therefore
> it should be restricted". but this reminds me of speed limit
> advocates saying, "55 saves lives". well, how many? 35 saves lives
> over 55. the key issue is that of *compromise*: what is the optimum
> compromise?  we can catch more criminals by adding security cameras
> everywhere, but what are the costs? 
> 
> such back-and-white thinking has 
> little place in any complex policy issue, yet unfortunately tends to 
> dominate them. it's very bizarre to see an academic like Denning
> just seem to be vacuously oblivious to such simple concepts such
> as "tradeoffs". nothing I've read suggests she has ever addressed
> the issue of *compromise* in regard to catching criminals vs.
> protecting rights.
> 
> but amazingly, people like Kallstrom seem to think the same way.
> paraphrased, "if even one criminal gets away because we didn't have enough
> funding in the FBI, we need more funding in the FBI" etc.
> 
> 3. she fails to address the "big brother" issue. why is wiretapping
> never going to be used by "big brother"? it's inconceivable to me
> how she can honestly evade this issue as well. she has never addressed
> the issue of abuse by law authorities from what I can tell.
> 
> 4. Denning seems to be to be remarkably swayed by "authority figures".
> she has changed her opinion before based merely on conversations 
> with "authority figures" in the FBI and NSA. it seems maybe she has
> a bit of "spook envy" or something like that. many of her arguments
> for me essentially amount to, "people that claim to know what they
> are doing say we need [x], therefore we need [x]"
> 
> 
> well, I am not trying to start a new round of Denning-bashing 
> (although that's always fun, hee, hee) but the recent article does
> give a little new food for thought about Denning's psychology etc.
> 
> frankly I think that Denning has lost the intellectual battle because
> she absolutely fails to address some of the above key points. (particularly
> the total failure to address the constitution is getting more egregious). I 
> suggest that anyone who wants to debunk her line of thinking (which apparently
> is getting to be awfully easy) just focus on any of the above areas.
> she apparently has no reponse to these points in anything I have
> read of hers.
> 
>

SL:
>This was not an interview, but an article.  Though all quotes are 
>accurate (and checked with the source) it was me who did the choosing, so 
>it's really not fair to fault Dorothy for not addressing issues x and y, 
>etc.

hey, cut me some slack. you did specifically "interview" her for the article,
(I'm remembering the part where you say
you pressed for details about how clipper would improve the world, and
she came back talking about how she got locked out of a swim locker in 
her wet bathing suit, hee, hee). it's not an interview in the sense that 
you are  directly quoting her the whole article, but I'd say it would be
fair to call it an interview. article, whatever, I don't care.

also, I was not claiming that Denning failed to address particular
issues in the article alone (which I agree would not be totally
fair, with only one "sample"). I've read a lot of her writing and
talking and am pointing out that she doesn't volunteer any info
on the points I mentioned (constitutionality etc.) in general, 
even when pressed, and that your article fits into suggesting this pattern 
of evasion of certain points on her part. 

did she talk to you about any of the issues I mentioned in 
my post? if so, I would have suspected you would have included them
in the article. in any case, even on her own and when directly
challenged, she avoids the key issues I mentioned to a degree that
for me approaches intellectual sloppiness or even dishonesty. 

the article imho correctly
conveys the reality that Denning, even after being the poster-girl
for Clipper, wiretapping, and key escrow, has failed to take into
account or address the key devastating counterpoints of her opposition, and 
still at this late date has great difficulty explaining why "all the above"
is a good thing and desirable, despite endless opportunity to boil
her stance into effective soundbites.

>For a more comprehensive defense of her position you can go to her 
>web site, where she has lotsa position papers.

fair enough. I challenge anyone to show how she's addressed the
points I mentioned. I'm simply pointing out a pattern I've noticed
in her thinking of which your own article is another confirmation,
but not the sole basis for the claim.

>Incidentally, I didn't set out to rehash the Clipper issues in the 
>article, but to try to give some insight into Dorothy herself. 

which you did. that's why I said in my post, it gives interesting
fodder for psychogical insights of Denning's position.

I don't know why you seem to be defensive about the article
in your response when I said nothing critical of your own role.

I guess I didn't make it clear I thought it was a fine
article and thought you did a commendable job, and I've always
been a big fan, if you care about my opinion in the matter <g>

there are other places in the article where I do sense a bit of a 
subtle bias against Denning, especially in the last paragraph, but
overall I thought it was very objective. it seems to me it would
be hard to write an objective article about Denning that didn't
raise doubts in the readers mind (i.e. by carefully avoiding all
mention of her opponents etc.)

Didn't mean to be defensive or criticize you, Vladimir.  Just wanted to 
make it clear that the story didn't necessarily include all her 
reasonings. You make some fine points.