IP: Re: good comments re Major University to Be Asked to Review F.B.I.'s 'Carnivore'

[Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

Well said Spaf!!!! djf


> X-Sender: >X-Sender: spaf@128.10.241.20
> Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 21:49:37 -0500
> To: farber () cis upenn edu
> From: Gene Spafford <spaf () cerias purdue edu>
> Subject: Re: IP: good comments re Major University to Be Asked to Review
>  F.B.I.'s 'Carnivore'
> Cc: ip-sub-1 () majordomo pobox com
>
> At 10:09 PM -0400 8/10/00, Jim Warren wrote:
> > > It would be a lot MORE interesting to see:
> > >
> > > 1.  Why a team of well-known top technologists, widely known and 
> > > well-reputed on the NET, and also KNOWN FOR THEIR INDEPENDENCE FROM THE 
> > > GOVT, wasn't chosen.
>
> Maybe because they aren't going to pay consultant's rates? Universities 
> tend to work more cheaply.
>
> > > 2.  How much military and federal money is funneled into said university 
> > > -- before, during and after their "study."
>
> I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, Jim.   But as someone at a 
> university that is often asked to evaluate items -- some controversial -- 
> I am offended by some of the implications of your statement.
>
> Do you think any CS faculty in the university setting are here for the 
> *money*?   Do you think if a university gets more funding, any faculty see 
> it in their take-home pay?     If so, you don't know how things really work!
>
> Some of us prize the independence that tenure and the university allow 
> us.    Our reputations are important to us.      That's why so many people 
> from government, industry, and the private sector turn to us for tasks 
> such as this -- and trust the results.     There are mechanisms and 
> controls in place at reputable universities to avoid conflicts of interest 
> -- the university's reputation is important; and in the personal arena, 
> the chance of ruining one's professional credibility for life is an 
> extremely strong control.
>
> In this regard, university groups are probably more neutral than 
> well-known individuals who are "independent" from the government, probably 
> because they are always critical of it.
>
>
> > > 3.  Who gets to review -- and censor -- the findings of the "team 
> > > [players]" before they are released to the public.
>
> This is always a concern.