[9801] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
"Open" Spook Group Won't Reveal Senator's Name
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Rothman)
Fri Jan 21 15:40:59 1994
In-Reply-To: <199401210705.XAA02506@mail.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 94 15:35:23 -0400
To: steeler@well.sf.ca.us
Cc: com-priv@psi.com, cosndisc@bitnic.BITNET, cpsr-members@eff.org,
From: "David Rothman" <rothman@netcom.com>
Reply-To: rothman@netcom.com
>Message-Id: <199401210723.XAA19705@well.sf.ca.us>
>Date: Thu, 20 Jan 1994 23:23:41 -0800
>To: rothman@netcom.com
>From: Robert David Steele <steeler@well.sf.ca.us>
>Subject: Re: Clipper X 1,000,000? "Power" Senator Tied to Spook's Plan?
>Feel free to post this anywhere you like. I am not going to clutter
>up the airwaves myself.
Oh, heck, your original post went to a few lists :-;
I'm reproducing every syllable of your newest.
>As I noted in my earlier email, I am sending a collection of written
>materials--after you have digested them, I welcome a substantive
>dialog. Right now you have gone off half-cocked.
Well, you're Open Source Solutions, right? Here you're asking for
people's help in writing legislation. For whom? Which Power figure? A
few questions are in order.
At least you've admitted that you want the CIA and the rest involved in
our nation's information system in more than a minor way. There is a
difference between a sensible policy--e.g., making CIA folks just
another part of net life--and having a National Knowledge Foundation
with spooky influences.
You're involving spies and PIs (to one extent or another) in activities
best performed by public libraries, newspapers, book publishers,
writers, and the other usual suspects. What else is there to know?
Bob, I wanted to resist the temptation to use the O word, but, alas, I'm
not up to the challenge. To involve spooks so much in national
information policy is downright Orwellian.
> As for who
>specifically is behind the request, it is a rule in Washington
>that premature revelation of such information will result in the
>worthy's (ies) being inundated with mail and calls seeking to
>kill the idea before it has been properly staffed.
But look, you're *Open* Source Solutions. Come on, come on, prove your
theory that little needs to be secret.
Here you're depriving me of useful information I need to TWEP your plan.
Can't we ordinary citizens be privy to the same information when you
are? You need to be consistent. You are or aren't for simultaneous
release of information to us curious folk. If this is your information
policy now, what happens if, God forbid, you do get your way?
BTW, what do you mean by "properly staffed"? So your Hill buddies can
mount a PR campaign?
Please add that to my list of questions.
> I chose to
>take the risk of asking for public comment because I felt it was
>worth it--and many of your comments I find useful, despite your
>misundertanding of my intent. I will post a copy of the draft
>language (am trying to keep it under twenty double-spaced pages)
>on Monday, probably in the WELL gopher space.
Misunderstand your intent? Hardly the problem. Quite the reverse. I
understand it all too well.
You want to spend a billion dollars on a National Knowledge Foundation
while our public libraries are falling apart. And right after "K-12,
univ., and lib," you mention "private investigators/information brokers"
as participants in "our information continuum." Ahead of business
people. Ahead of media, even. Too, you bring in "defense and intelligence."
Somehow I don't think that the CIA and similar folks are as trustworthy
on First Amendment matters as the usual suspects--e.g., media folks and
librarians.
Remember all the controversies over CIA reports slanted to favor the
whims of high officials? Or the disinformation printed abroad that
somehow made its way into U.S. papers?
Bob, I want the CIA to be effective against Third World dictators and
protect the American system in *that* sense. But librarians and the rest
can better do the job at home, thanks. Let's not bring in spies. Yes, it
would be wonderful for libraries to have unclassified reports from
Langley (as long as readers knew the origins). And, yes, I couldn't
agree more with your belief that some of the best intelligence is
already public information (applause!). But again there's no need for
your billion dollars with strings attached.
What's ahead eventually? Security clearances for editors?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Note: Possible Freudian slip: If in a previous post I wrote
"information consortium," I meant "continuum."
**************************************************************************
David H. Rothman "So we beat on, boats against
rothman@netcom.com the current...."
805 N. Howard St., #240
Alexandria, Va. 22304
703-370-6540(o)(h)
I *encourage* online reproduction of my public postings.
Permission hereby granted--implicit, explicit, whatever. Down
with unnecessary restrictions on the flow of knowledge!
**************************************************************************
