Re: CDT Policy Post 3.08 - Senate Committee Approves Key Crypto Bill

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 19:44:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Charles Platt <cp@panix.com>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Subject: Re: CDT Policy Post 3.08 - Senate Committee Approves Key Crypto Bill (fwd)

> From: "Shabbir J. Safdar" <shabbir@vtw.org>

> We owe them a great big debt of thanks, not the derision that goes with
> Alice in Wonderland political punditry.

They did what they did because they thought it was in their interests; 
otherwise they wouldn't have done it. We owe them nothing, and I am 
horrified to see this phrase. How much do you owe a parasite that tries 
to negotiate with other parasites to take slightly less of your blood 
than they originally expected?

Statements similar to yours have been made so many times, scolding
"extremists" for "not being realistic." I seem to remember something about
extremism in defense of liberty being no vice, and moderation no virtue.
Either way, if you compromise, you don't get what you want. That is
absolutely obvious. So why compromise?

On Fri, Jun 20, 1997 at 04:50:16PM -0700, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 19:44:33 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Charles Platt <cp@panix.com>
[...]
> 
> Statements similar to yours have been made so many times, scolding
> "extremists" for "not being realistic." I seem to remember something about
> extremism in defense of liberty being no vice, and moderation no virtue.
> Either way, if you compromise, you don't get what you want. That is
> absolutely obvious. So why compromise? 

Because half a million dollars is better than no dollars? Because in
real life the vast majority of choices are not binary? Because in real
life you have to live with someone as intransigent as you?

The real question is: What is the most *effective* way for achieving
your ends.  "No compromise" negotiaton can be effective at either end of 
the power scale (if you hold *all* the cards there is no point in 
compromising; if you hold *no* cards there is no point in 
compromising).  In this case your "no compromise" stand is the 
reflective of the "no cards" position -- "we've already lost so we 
might as well go down guns blazing."

However, others do not see the situation as bleakly as you do.

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html

> Because half a million dollars is better than no dollars? Because in
> real life the vast majority of choices are not binary? Because in real
> life you have to live with someone as intransigent as you?

Intransigence is no excuse for being wrong, nor does it make it any less 
a crime to censor or pronounce imperatives.

> However, others do not see the situation as bleakly as you do.

Rubbish, there can be no place for compromise where issues as clear cut 
as censorship or GAK are concerned.

        Datacomms Technologies data security
       Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk
  Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org    
       Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/
      Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85
     "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"