CDT complains to my editors after post to cypherpunks

[CDT's Jonah Seiger copied this message to my editors. I'm still waiting
for him to answer my questions. --Declan]

---

Subject:
            Re: The Commerce committee votes are up at crypto.com
       Date:
            Fri, 26 Sep 1997 10:29:17 -0400
      From:
            Jonah Seiger <jseiger@cdt.org>
        To:
            Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>


Declan --

If you are curious about what it is about your style that bothers CDT so
much, start with this hostile, accusitory message posted to a public list
(in this case, cypherpunks).

This message is not a question -- it's an attack.  It assumes the answer
before it's asked, and it's nothing more than read meat thrown to a hungry
crowd.

If you have questions about how we set up the site, or how we feel about
the results of Wednesday's Commerce Committee vote, all you have to do is
contact us.  We will be happy to talk to you.  This is the way every other
journalist we work with operates.

Unfortunately, your pattern is different. I would have thought that after
last week's unfortunate incident you would have learned something.  Perhaps
I was assuming too much.

Jonah

At 11:19 PM -0400 9/25/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>Thanks, Shabbir, for putting this vital information online. But I'm a
>little puzzled. I fear the CDT/VTW crypto.com web site may be misleading.
>
>You say, for instance, that opposing SAFE yesterday was a vote "against
>Internet privacy" and "against passing the SAFE bill out of committee."
>That's not true. The Markey-White-amended bill the committee approved
>yesterday was not the SAFE bill. It was a deviant version with important
>differences from SAFE.
>
>The Markey-White amendment includes: the doubled crypto-in-a-crime
>penalties (10-20 years!), the sop to eventual mandatory key recovery by
>including liability immunity for turning over keys to the Feds or the
>sheriff of Podunk County, the bogus NETcenter that effectively gives the
>NSA a statutory basis for domestic evildoing, etc. (Markey wanted to take
>credit for killing the original SAFE. He told the Washington Post "after
>the vote" that the original, better, Goodlatte SAFE "no longer exists as a
>political option." That's right -- thanks to his own amendment...)
>
>The second and third votes are essentially the same: should the above
>provisions be in the Commerce committee of the bill. But why do you avoid
>taking a position on whether the second vote on Markey-White was good or
>bad?
>
>If the second description was to avoid taking a position on Markey-White,
>it doesn't work. You say in your third description that a vote for the
>amended Markey-White bill was a good one. Why would CDT/VTW endorse such
>disturbing legislation? (And not admit it?) To what extent was CDT/VTW
>involved in drafting Markey-White and to what extent did you encourage
>committee members to vote for it?
>
>Also, the description for the third vote is misleading by itself. It just
>says "report SAFE" when it should say "report SAFE with Markey-White
>provisions" out of committee.
>
>And, given these problems with Markey-White, why is the CDT/VTW crypto.com
>site counting a vote for the Markey-White-amended bill as a vote for
>"Internet privacy?" I should think that given the problems -- such as
>doubling of crypto-in-a-crime and sop towards mandatory key recovery --
>that a vote against the Markey-White-amended bill is a //good// vote, not
>one against Net-privacy.
>
>If a legislator wanted to vote for Internet freedom and reject deviant
>bills, he should have voted against Oxley, Markey-White, and against
>passing the bill with Markey-White out of committee yesterday. (That would
>have left the cleaner Judiciary committee version of SAFE as a more likely
>option.) Rep. Brown, for instance, did just that -- yet you tar him as
>against Internet freedoms.
>
>Go figure.
>
>-Declan
>
>
>crypto.com says:
>
>>Voted in favor of Internet privacy at the full
>>Commerce committee vote on Sep 24 1997. This vote was
>>against attaching the Oxley-Manton 'Big Brother'
>>amendment to SAFE.
>>
>>Voted against the Markey-White amendment at the full
>>Commerce committee vote on Sep 24 1997. The vote was
>>against attaching the Markey-White amendment to SAFE.
>>
>>Voted against Internet privacy at the full Commerce
>>committee vote on Sep 24 1997. The vote was against
>>passing the SAFE bill out of committee.
>
>
>
>At 17:56 -0400 9/25/97, Shabbir J. Safdar wrote:
>>Last night's votes on SAFE in the Commerce committee are in place at
>>http://www.crypto.com/member/
>>
>>Simply select the member of Congress you're curious about, either by zip code
>>or by state, and you can see how they voted in the three Commerce votes
>>last night.  Then, you can call and yell or send kudos.



* Value Your Privacy? The Government Doesn't.  Say 'No' to Key Escrow! *
            Adopt Your Legislator -  http://www.crypto.com/adopt

--
Jonah Seiger, Communications Director              (v) +1.202.637.9800
Center for Democracy and Technology              pager +1.202.859.2151
<jseiger@cdt.org>
                                                    PGP Key via finger
http://www.cdt.org
http://www.cdt.org/homes/jseiger

Declan McCullagh wrote:
> [CDT's Jonah Seiger copied this message to my editors. I'm still waiting
> for him to answer my questions. --Declan]
 
> Declan --
> 
> If you are curious about what it is about your style that bothers CDT so
> much, start with this hostile, accusitory message posted to a public list
> (in this case, cypherpunks).
...

  Upon reading CDT's last offering to the CypherPunks list, I was trying
to figure out how to write a half-civil post telling them they had their
head up their ass.
  When I read Declan's post, I decided that he had already taken care of
the matter in a much more civil way than I could ever hope to.

  Since these fucking idiots seem to be scratching around in their ears
after picking their asses, thereby leaving deposits which interfere with
their hearing, I will take the time and trouble to point out a few
things for their edification.

  For starters, after reading the nonsense that the CDT spammed the list
with, I wondered if they were stupid, illiterate or both, since they
don't seem to be able to follow either the details of what is happening
with regard to the SAFE legislation and its variations, nor form a clear
concept of the real issues involved.
  I would suggest that if CDT is going to purport to be some sort of 
news/information source, that they invest in a fucking dictionary and
keep it on Seiger's desk. 
  I would further suggest that if Jonah is incapable of supporting his
vague claims of unjust attack by Declan, that he reread Declan's post
with an eye toward learning how a real journalist provides solid details
and examples to express his message and the stance he is taking.

  I have yet to read a CDT release which I do not have to reread to 
confirm my suspicion that the excess, confusing verbosity that is
employed seems to serve mostly to mask the fact that they are both
misrepresenting the facts and misleading those who trust them to
properly outline the issues involved.

  In short, I would be very surprised if CDT's dicks don't smell
suspiciously like Freeh's asshole.
  I will refrain from commenting on making a similar analogy to
Freeh's tongue and CDT's assholes, as it might be in bad taste.

  I am beginning to think that democracy might have a better chance
of having some life breathed back into it in America if someone with
a chainsaw were to do some selective clear-cutting to remove the
deadwood in the plethora of organizations that have the audacity
to proclaim their compromises with fascism as the defense of 
democracy. (Can you say 'CDT'? Sure you can...)

Toto
~~~~
"The Xenix Chainsaw Massacre"
http://bureau42.base.org/public/xenix
"WebWorld & the Mythical Circle of Eunuchs"
http://bureau42.base.org/public/webworld
"The Final Frontier"
http://www3.sk.sympatico.ca/carljohn
"InfoWar"
http://bureau42.base.org/public/infowar3

At 7:41 AM -0700 9/26/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>[CDT's Jonah Seiger copied this message to my editors. I'm still waiting
>for him to answer my questions. --Declan]

Let us know what happens. I'd guess that your editors do nothing. Not
exactly a fireable offense. Your messages to Cypherpunks or
Fight-Censorship may differ in tone from your articles in "Time" or other
fora. This is natural, it seems to me.

The larger issue is that the CDT/VTW "players" are showing their
willingness to trade away the civil liberties of us all for a few minor
tidbits thrown (they think) to corporate sponsors.

Washington is a city based almost exclusively on theft. It feeds off the
rest of the country, indeed, the rest of the world. It thrives by
collecting tribute. The more laws it can generate, the more tribute, and
the more power it has. Like the other famed imperial capitals,  the only
game in town is politics. Meaning, how to collect and distribute money.

Those who work near Washington tend to get pulled into this power vortex.
They become functionaries, advisors, consultants, lobbyists, or even,
sometimes, elected politicians themselves.

This is probably why EFF belatedly realized that their soul was being lost
and got the hell out. That so few news magazines delved into this is
telling.

I think a major expose of the "cyber liberties" lobbying groups in
Washington is needed. Where they get their funding, what their real goals
are, why they are so willing to compromise on basic liberties. Maybe you
will write it, Declan.

--Tim May

The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

Tim May <tcmay@got.net> writes:

> At 7:41 AM -0700 9/26/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> >[CDT's Jonah Seiger copied this message to my editors. I'm still waiting
> >for him to answer my questions. --Declan]
>
> Let us know what happens. I'd guess that your editors do nothing. Not
> exactly a fireable offense. ...

Declan's been trying to build up a reputation as a freedom of speech
advocate.  Even I was taken in by his deception until Steve Boursy
opened by eyes and told me that Declan is a pro-censorship scumbag.

As for Declan's employers, it's not a freedom of speech issue. He gets
paid to write. If he continues to write lies and to fabricate quotes,
they'll be right to fire him. He's free to continue lying on his own time.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----



It would appear the excitement of the last couple of days has been too
much for Jonah. It confounds belief that following Shabbir's public
post to cypherpunks inviting inspection of www.crypto.com that Jonah,
the communications officer for CDT, of all people would seek to squash
public debate of queries arising therefrom from you, Declan, or indeed
from any other individual.

Given that Jonah views your post to Shabbir as as an attack and has
failed to respond to any of the issues raises further questions which
I leave for the reader to ponder.

I would hope Jonah can recover sufficiently to enable himself to get
over the irrelevant matter of whether your post constitutes an attack
and perhaps consider communicating a response to the substantive
issues you raised.


>>>>> "D" == Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
>>>>> wrote the following on Fri, 26 Sep 1997 10:41:59 -0400

  D> [CDT's Jonah Seiger copied this message to my editors. I'm still
  D> waiting for him to answer my questions. --Declan]

  D> ---

  D> Subject: Re: The Commerce committee votes are up at crypto.com
  D> Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 10:29:17 -0400 From: Jonah Seiger
  D> <jseiger@cdt.org> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>


  D> Declan --

  D> If you are curious about what it is about your style that bothers
  D> CDT so much, start with this hostile, accusitory message posted
  D> to a public list (in this case, cypherpunks).

  D> This message is not a question -- it's an attack.  It assumes the
  D> answer before it's asked, and it's nothing more than read meat
  D> thrown to a hungry crowd.

  D> If you have questions about how we set up the site, or how we
  D> feel about the results of Wednesday's Commerce Committee vote,
  D> all you have to do is contact us.  We will be happy to talk to
  D> you.  This is the way every other journalist we work with
  D> operates.

  D> Unfortunately, your pattern is different. I would have thought
  D> that after last week's unfortunate incident you would have
  D> learned something.  Perhaps I was assuming too much.

  D> Jonah

  D> At 11:19 PM -0400 9/25/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
  >> Thanks, Shabbir, for putting this vital information online. But
  >> I'm a little puzzled. I fear the CDT/VTW crypto.com web site may
  >> be misleading.
  >> 
  >> You say, for instance, that opposing SAFE yesterday was a vote
  >> "against Internet privacy" and "against passing the SAFE bill out
  >> of committee."  That's not true. The Markey-White-amended bill
  >> the committee approved yesterday was not the SAFE bill. It was a
  >> deviant version with important differences from SAFE.
  >> 
  >> The Markey-White amendment includes: the doubled
  >> crypto-in-a-crime penalties (10-20 years!), the sop to eventual
  >> mandatory key recovery by including liability immunity for
  >> turning over keys to the Feds or the sheriff of Podunk County,
  >> the bogus NETcenter that effectively gives the NSA a statutory
  >> basis for domestic evildoing, etc. (Markey wanted to take credit
  >> for killing the original SAFE. He told the Washington Post "after
  >> the vote" that the original, better, Goodlatte SAFE "no longer
  >> exists as a political option." That's right -- thanks to his own
  >> amendment...)
  >> 
  >> The second and third votes are essentially the same: should the
  >> above provisions be in the Commerce committee of the bill. But
  >> why do you avoid taking a position on whether the second vote on
  >> Markey-White was good or bad?
  >> 
  >> If the second description was to avoid taking a position on
  >> Markey-White, it doesn't work. You say in your third description
  >> that a vote for the amended Markey-White bill was a good one. Why
  >> would CDT/VTW endorse such disturbing legislation? (And not admit
  >> it?) To what extent was CDT/VTW involved in drafting Markey-White
  >> and to what extent did you encourage committee members to vote
  >> for it?
  >> 
  >> Also, the description for the third vote is misleading by
  >> itself. It just says "report SAFE" when it should say "report
  >> SAFE with Markey-White provisions" out of committee.
  >> 
  >> And, given these problems with Markey-White, why is the CDT/VTW
  >> crypto.com site counting a vote for the Markey-White-amended bill
  >> as a vote for "Internet privacy?" I should think that given the
  >> problems -- such as doubling of crypto-in-a-crime and sop towards
  >> mandatory key recovery -- that a vote against the
  >> Markey-White-amended bill is a //good// vote, not one against
  >> Net-privacy.
  >> 
  >> If a legislator wanted to vote for Internet freedom and reject
  >> deviant bills, he should have voted against Oxley, Markey-White,
  >> and against passing the bill with Markey-White out of committee
  >> yesterday. (That would have left the cleaner Judiciary committee
  >> version of SAFE as a more likely option.) Rep. Brown, for
  >> instance, did just that -- yet you tar him as against Internet
  >> freedoms.
  >> 
  >> Go figure.
  >> 
  >> -Declan
  >> 
  >> 
  >> crypto.com says:
  >> 
  >>> Voted in favor of Internet privacy at the full Commerce
  >>> committee vote on Sep 24 1997. This vote was against attaching
  >>> the Oxley-Manton 'Big Brother' amendment to SAFE.
  >>> 
  >>> Voted against the Markey-White amendment at the full Commerce
  >>> committee vote on Sep 24 1997. The vote was against attaching
  >>> the Markey-White amendment to SAFE.
  >>> 
  >>> Voted against Internet privacy at the full Commerce committee
  >>> vote on Sep 24 1997. The vote was against passing the SAFE bill
  >>> out of committee.
  >> 
  >> 
  >> 
  >> At 17:56 -0400 9/25/97, Shabbir J. Safdar wrote:
  >>> Last night's votes on SAFE in the Commerce committee are in
  >>> place at http://www.crypto.com/member/
  >>> 
  >>> Simply select the member of Congress you're curious about,
  >>> either by zip code or by state, and you can see how they voted
  >>> in the three Commerce votes last night.  Then, you can call and
  >>> yell or send kudos.



  D> * Value Your Privacy? The Government Doesn't.  Say 'No' to Key
  D> Escrow! * Adopt Your Legislator - http://www.crypto.com/adopt

  D> -- Jonah Seiger, Communications Director (v) +1.202.637.9800
  D> Center for Democracy and Technology pager +1.202.859.2151
  D> <jseiger@cdt.org> PGP Key via finger http://www.cdt.org
  D> http://www.cdt.org/homes/jseiger

- --
   .////.   .//    Charles Senescall             apache@bear.apana.org.au
 o:::::::::///                                   
>::::::::::\\\     PGP mail preferred                  Brisbane AUSTRALIA
   '\\\\\'   \\    PGP






-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv

iQEVAwUBNCvzNnawhvoxf0r9AQHxawf/bxMsoyNQOXY4v9EfbDH5YBQkkhmi1jL1
IB64kalbRQkhvF+Ql3tI4tCc9c3HA3imaJ8+hxet/GvWqEUSyYJ3hOdS8rcYr20S
smpj0YVWNJVSPFLI2uf4DiVDlsIHQYTafmDmGUxOrZ29biM0cL96gGtC9xA/Cfi5
H/b4cJcpQrzg1vshWiMihrE3rN5QXyoNaSXMx9S4TIt9XPIO4aWA+VOhX/Q8FGGv
dGdaVxi86wzYpWnROFfyS2qBIVBCPGWy1FM2xGIMBv1ESfZ/0UWdjAuzcFAO2dyr
0VCbN7OUrhdPaT0a8Ba0StoeLLf4z/42P4kJe/PMl6ODjLbQHaRCIw==
=f7PW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> writes:
> Declan --
> 
> If you are curious about what it is about your style that bothers CDT so
> much, start with this hostile, accusitory message posted to a public list
> (in this case, cypherpunks).

Declan forged quotes from me in his nutly news piece about Gilmore pulling
my plug.

Also, seeing much traffic cross-posted between cypherpunks and the fight-
censorship list, I sent a subscribe request to majordomo@vorlon.

I got back a robotic response saying Declan is reviewing my request...
Then nothing.  Apparenttly Declan doesn't want me reading his list.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

On Fri, 26 Sep 1997, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:

Declan is smart.

I think Vulis needs each of us to send ten copies of this back to him.

Do you understand why now.


> Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> writes:
> > Declan --
> > 
> > If you are curious about what it is about your style that bothers CDT so
> > much, start with this hostile, accusitory message posted to a public list
> > (in this case, cypherpunks).
> 
> Declan forged quotes from me in his nutly news piece about Gilmore pulling
> my plug.
> 
> Also, seeing much traffic cross-posted between cypherpunks and the fight-
> censorship list, I sent a subscribe request to majordomo@vorlon.
> 
> I got back a robotic response saying Declan is reviewing my request...
> Then nothing.  Apparenttly Declan doesn't want me reading his list.
> 
> ---
> 
> Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
> Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
> 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Graham-John Bullers                      Moderator of alt.2600.moderated   
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    email : <real@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca> : <ab756@freenet.toronto.on.ca>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
         http://www.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca/~real/index.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At 11:17 -0400 9/26/97, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
>Declan forged quotes from me in his nutly news piece about Gilmore pulling
>my plug.

Oh, really? First time I've heard this line from Vulis.

Want me to post the complete text of our interview? You were rather
reticent, shy, almost bashful, I recall. Most uncharacteristic, really.

-Declan



-------------------------
Declan McCullagh
Time Inc.
The Netly News Network
Washington Correspondent
http://netlynews.com/

Declan McCullagh <declan@pathfinder.com> writes:

> At 11:17 -0400 9/26/97, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
> >Declan forged quotes from me in his nutly news piece about Gilmore pulling
> >my plug.
> 
> Oh, really? First time I've heard this line from Vulis.
> 
> Want me to post the complete text of our interview? You were rather
Go ahead, forger.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

Declan McCullagh <declan@pathfinder.com> writes:

> At 11:17 -0400 9/26/97, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
> >Declan forged quotes from me in his nutly news piece about Gilmore pulling
> >my plug.
>
> Oh, really? First time I've heard this line from Vulis.

This is a lie.  I pointed out the forgery right after Declan posted his
netly news piece on this mailing list.  You may recall that Declan was
one of the few people openly supportive of Gilmore's censorship - both
in his mailing list traffic and editorializing in his netly news piece.

The only reason why I mentioned Declan's forgery again is because I saw
Declan's lack of accuracy and disregard for the truth being discussed
again, by CDT.  I don't know why he worked up his panties in such a knot.

Declan's been trying to picture himself as a "freedom fighter" of sorts
on this forum. Well, the truth is that he supported Gilmore's censorship
and more recently didn't allow me to read his mailing list, aptly
named "fight-censorship".

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

Dimitri, please forward your original message complaining about being
misquoted in my Netly article. I don't remember such a thing. Of course you
were whining in general back then, but that's hardly surprising.

I've never styled myself as a "freedom fighter." I do support property
rights, and the right to do what you want with your own computer is
certainly one of those.

Feel free to read f-c. The archives are publicly available on the web, and
have been for years.

Unless Vulis says something interesting, this will be my last response to
him. Sometimes it's not worth it to dignify a post with a reply.

-Declan


At 19:07 -0400 9/26/97, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
>Declan McCullagh <declan@pathfinder.com> writes:
>
>> At 11:17 -0400 9/26/97, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
>> >Declan forged quotes from me in his nutly news piece about Gilmore pulling
>> >my plug.
>>
>> Oh, really? First time I've heard this line from Vulis.
>
>This is a lie.  I pointed out the forgery right after Declan posted his
>netly news piece on this mailing list.  You may recall that Declan was
>one of the few people openly supportive of Gilmore's censorship - both
>in his mailing list traffic and editorializing in his netly news piece.
>
>The only reason why I mentioned Declan's forgery again is because I saw
>Declan's lack of accuracy and disregard for the truth being discussed
>again, by CDT.  I don't know why he worked up his panties in such a knot.
>
>Declan's been trying to picture himself as a "freedom fighter" of sorts
>on this forum. Well, the truth is that he supported Gilmore's censorship
>and more recently didn't allow me to read his mailing list, aptly
>named "fight-censorship".



-------------------------
Declan McCullagh
Time Inc.
The Netly News Network
Washington Correspondent
http://netlynews.com/

On Fri, 26 Sep 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:

> [CDT's Jonah Seiger copied this message to my editors. I'm still waiting
> for him to answer my questions. --Declan]

Maybe they can't distinguish Declan as journalist and Declan as online
debate participant (for lack of a better term).  Since I know of nothing
wrong with your reporting, either in accuracy, or in usefullness your
editors should know this and I would hope they would keep you on. 

If there is a cardinal virtue for a journalist it is to have active
opinions, but to keep them out when assigned to report facts.  But in
other venues, they should be free to express those opinions.

The original post appeared not to be from Declan in his capacity as a
journalist (he is free to correct me).  I assume that if it was part of
his assignment to ask this, he would have called.

> If you are curious about what it is about your style that bothers CDT so
> much, start with this hostile, accusitory message posted to a public list
> (in this case, cypherpunks).
> 
> This message is not a question -- it's an attack.  It assumes the answer
> before it's asked, and it's nothing more than read meat thrown to a hungry
> crowd.
> 
> If you have questions about how we set up the site, or how we feel about
> the results of Wednesday's Commerce Committee vote, all you have to do is
> contact us.  We will be happy to talk to you.  This is the way every other
> journalist we work with operates.

I have seen far worse attacks (literal, not simply asking hard questions)
by other participants here, as well as defenses.  I don't see the CDT
calling their employers or customers and complaining or praising. 

I too am interested in the answers to the questions.  I don't think
Markey-White is good (I see nothing intrinsically pro-privacy), but I
don't think it is a disaster unless it is simply the first step toward
Oxley or something as bad.  It is controversial, so to label it
pro-privacy or pro-censorship requires at least a defense of the position
- and I have heard Declan's side and tend to agree with him.

And the answers are important.  If the CDT thinks that Markey-White is a
useful compromise (i.e. they value lifting the export ban more than the
problems with the extra rules), they should say so, but that is different
from saying that Markey-White is pro-privacy.