IP: More on Reason's Cathy Young column on encryption, wiretapping

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> From: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
>
> Cathy Young's column on Reason magazine's website 
> (http://www.reason.com/cy/cy092401.html) is poorly conceived and is not 
> the product of careful thinking. For Young to dismiss concerns about 
> broader online (and offline) eavesdropping powers as "no different" from 
> the current state of affairs is misleading. Saying encryption is so 
> "scary" it should be regulated does a disservice to those who have spent 
> many thousands of hours pointing out the constitutional, technological, 
> and economic problems associated with such a proposal. Many of those 
> analyses have appeared in Reason.
>
> This is not meant to be a personal attack. Young has a history of writing 
> thoughtful, provocative, and usually entirely correct articles in other 
> areas (http://www.reason.com/opeds/young.html). I'm a fan of her writings 
> -- but, alas, it seems that her usual acumen does not extend to this 
> topic. I hope that libertarians -- especially prominent ones -- would 
> think twice, and thrice, before endorsing radically expanded surveillance 
> of Americans. This is a precarious time. As one left-leaning activist 
> wrote to me after seeing Young's article: "Your libbie buddies need to get 
> their act together. This is when stuff get serious."
>
> -Declan
>
> **********
>
> Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 20:29:36 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Charles Platt <cp () panix com>
> To: <gillespie () reason com>
> Cc: <davidn () reason org>, Matthew Gaylor <freematt () coil com>,
>         Timothy May <tcmay () got net>, Ron Bailey <RBailey21 () aol com>,
>         Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>, <cp () panix com>
> Subject: Cathy Young's Anxiety Attack
>
> Bad enough that a contributing editor to Reason should indulge in the
> cliche-ridden handwringing of a statist apologist; far worse that these
> less-than-cerebral platitudes should be disseminated via an establishment
> publication, where Ms. Young is liable to be seen as a libertarian
> emissary.
>
> To Cathy Young: All systems entail risk. As has just been demonstrated,
> a government-run system for terrorism-prevention does not eliminate risk.
> It only eliminates the superficial appearance of risk. This is far more
> dangerous than an honest approach in which risk is recognized and
> individuals are encouraged to deal with it instead of running to their
> elected representatives and asking to be protected.
>
> "A free society is not a suicide pact"? No, it's a matter of principle,
> and of courage. I really think you should reconsider your political
> affiliations.
>
> --Charles Platt
> Senior Writer, Wired magazine
>
> ********
>
> Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 16:41:11 -0700
> From: Jason Lindquist <jlindqui () babylon5 figure1 net>
> To: letters () reason com
> Cc: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>, politech () politechbot com
> Subject: Re: FC: Reason's C. Young: Encryption is "scary," put up with 
> surveillance
>
> In our last episode, Declan McCullagh forwarded:
>
> > http://www.reason.com/cy/cy092401.html
> >
> >     September 24, 2001
> >     Civil liberties may take a hit
> >     By Cathy Young
>
>     [...]
>
> >     Do I like the idea of the government intercepting e-mail? No. But, as
> >     long as there's judicial oversight and due process, that's no
> >     different from its longstanding power to intercept regular mail.
>
> *sigh*
>
> One would think that a publication should at least *try* to live up
> to its name.
>
> Intercepting paper postal mail tends to leave evidence that it's
> been read.  The envelope has been cut open and reclosed with tape.
> Or perhaps it was steamed open and resealed... steam inevitably
> leaves odd wrinkles in the paper, and it's unlikely the new glue
> seal will line up with the old one.
>
> Intercepting paper mail also takes time and effort, substantially more
> than would be involved in any kind of scan of digital media.  Somebody,
> or something, has to cut that envelope open, read its perhaps scrawled,
> barely-legible contents, reclose it, and send it back on its way.
> Never mind, surveillance of e-mail doesn't leave a trace on the message
> itself.  The receiver has no way to tell if the message has been read
> by a third party or not.
>
> Due process?  Recent and distant history is rife with cases where
> authorities have attempted to circumvent or flat ignore it, from the hunt
> for Communist subversives in the 1950s and 60s (well-meaning in theory,
> rabidly overzealous in execution,) to the hunt for drug traffickers and
> gang criminals in places like Los Angeles' Rampart district (well-meaning
> in theory, rabidly overzealous in execution.)
>
> Today, what possible reason do we have to expect that no one in law
> enforcement, though meaning well, will not overzealously overstep
> their boundaries?  When their transgression leaves no evidence, there
> is little, if any, chance they will be discovered and penalized.  What's
> to stop such a person?  What assurances can we possibly have?
>
> >     It is said that there are no atheists in foxholes; perhaps there are
> >     no true libertarians in times of terrorist attacks.
>
> Then again, perhaps not.
>
> >     Even in the Declaration of Independence, the right to liberty is
> >     preceded by the right to life.
>
> Take away too much of the former, and what meaning is left in the latter?
>
> --
> Jason Lindquist  <*>     "Mostly though, I think it gave us hope,
> linky () see figure1 net     That there can always be a new beginning.
> KB9LCL                    Even for people like us."
>                             -- Gen. Susan Ivanova, B5, "Sleeping In Light"
>
> **********
>
> Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 19:15:34 -0400
> From: Matthew Gaylor <freematt () coil com>
> Subject: Defeatist Compromising Commentary From Reason Magazine
> Cc: gillespie () reason com, davidn () reason org, tcmay () got net
>
> [Note from Matthew Gaylor:  Again more defeatist compromising 
> commentary.  Reason Magazine's contributing editor Cathy Young writes: "Do 
> I like the idea of people being able to encrypt electronic communications 
> so that they are beyond surveillance? Frankly, I found it scary even 
> before Sept. 11 - precisely because of the threat of terrorism. It is said 
> that there are no atheists in foxholes; perhaps there are no true 
> libertarians in times of terrorist attacks.  Even in the Declaration of 
> Independence, the right to liberty is preceded by the right to life." In 
> this case I found Cypherpunk Tim May's <tcmay () got net> sarcastic comment 
> right on the money.  Tim writes:  "Between Cato arguing for victim 
> disarmament and Reason arguing that "right to liberty is preceded by the 
> right to life," I say we just kill them all and let Rand sort them 
> out."  If you find Ms. Young's comments against encryption disturbing 
> please write to Nick Gillespie <gillespie () reason com> Editor-in-Chief of 
> Reason Magazine and David Nott <davidn () reason org> President, Reason 
> Foundation.]
>
> [Reason article snipped --DBM]
>
> **************************************************************************
> Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
> Send a blank message to: freematt () coil com with the words subscribe FA
> on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
> Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722  ICQ: 106212065   Archived at 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/
> **************************************************************************
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
> You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
> Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
> To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
> This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/