Interesting People mailing list archives
Emotion vs. Reason in the Clipper "Debate"
From: David Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 23:26:00 -0500
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 94 12:57 PST From: lauren () vortex com (Lauren Weinstein; PRIVACY Forum Moderator) Subject: Emotion vs. Reason in the Clipper "Debate" Greetings. The PRIVACY Forum submission box is piled high with Clipper related messages. I will not be distributing most of them. The level of discourse demonstrated in some of the submissions I've received is shockingly low--replete with ad hominem attacks and emotionally potent but logically deprived arguments. The "debate" over Clipper is threatening to be pulled straight into the sewer. This is clearly not an encouraging development. The issues of Clipper and related topics are too important to be dragged down to such a low level. Other activities regarding this debate are also of concern. As you may know, CPSR (Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility) has been sponsoring an e-mail anti-Clipper petition drive. EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) is sponsoring a similar e-mail based drive to pressure for U.S. Congressional hearings regarding Clipper. While many of the goals of both organizations are often laudable, I am not convinced that such "petition" techniques are appropriate to the circumstances at hand. The ease of sending e-mail means that it would probably be possible to get 10's of 1000's of quickie "add my name to the list" messages to such automated petition servers for virtually *any* topic. People don't have to understand, think about, or even have really heard about a subject, they just shoot an empty message off to an address and add their userid to the list. Even if we assume that there isn't much fraud from persons sending in multiple messages under differing names (certainly possible and simple on many systems) what does such quickie knee-jerk response mechanisms provide to enhance the debate? CPSR has been comparing the response to their current drive to the similar effort conducted against "Lotus Marketplace" sometime back. One could argue that the techniques used to convince a private firm not to market a particular niche information product (and of course, all the related information is still widely available!) is not necessarily applicable to arguing against a major cryptographic system with strong government backing and apparently not inconsiderable bipartisan support (at least outside of the "technical" community). CPSR has also recently been "promoting" a "Big Brother Inside" postscript picture that I feel serves little but to further trivialize this matter. Such "power by numbers" petitions remind me of the efforts (sometimes successful) of various pressure groups to force advertisers to drop support of television programs with aspects that the particular group finds distasteful, and of the practice of some radio talk show hosts to encourage their listeners to flood some entity with calls and/or letters opposing or supporting particular views. In almost all of these cases, the key isn't reasoned debate, it's just names and numbers--to try blind them with shear volume! That such techniques are sometimes successful, and that politicians and organizations will often react to such pressure petition drives, should not be an endorsement of such techniques being used. There is more at stake than simply "winning" a particular argument--the general coarsening of debate on so many topics into a flurry of opinion polls, petition drives, emotional television images, and the briefest of soundbites, threatens to change the nature of democracy in fundamental and negative ways. Clipper may not be the most important issue facing the world today. But there seems to be a trend toward treating this highly technical issue the same way we tend to treat discussions of gun control, abortion, and criminal sentencing in the U.S.--that is, with a maximum of emotion and a minimum of logic. I don't like Clipper. I think it's a bad idea. I have expressed this sentiment in the past in detail, so I won't go into the details again now. Almost a year ago in this forum, I suggested that interested persons on both sides of the issue inform their representatives and the involved parties of their thoughts on the matter and to express their opinions in PRIVACY Forum as well. I had hoped that such communications would be thoughtful and rich in meaningful arguments that would raise the level of discourse. I am discouraged to see the level of discussion now appearing from some messages in the PRIVACY Forum submission inbox and in some other network lists and newsgroups. Please folks. I know it's easy to get wound up in these matters--all the more so when it's so simple to just shoot off an e-mail message in a matter of minutes. But unless we all try to take the high road in these discussions, the importance of the issues are going to be drowned out in the shouting. Then, ultimately, we *all* lose, on both sides of the debate. A sampling of the Clipper messages that I thought were most suitable for this issue of the digest have been included below, along with other non-Clipper items. --Lauren--
Current thread:
- Emotion vs. Reason in the Clipper "Debate" David Farber (Feb 22)