[9810] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: "Open" Spook Group Won't Reveal Senator's Name
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Glenn S. Tenney)
Fri Jan 21 19:40:43 1994
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 1994 16:40:05 -0800
To: rothman@netcom.com, steeler@well.sf.ca.us
From: tenney@netcom.com (Glenn S. Tenney)
Cc: com-priv@psi.com, cosndisc@bitnic.BITNET, cpsr-members@eff.org,
At 3:35 PM 1/21/94 -0400, David Rothman wrote:
>>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.
David, at this I would agree with Robert -- you've got your afterburner on
before you've taxied out of the hangar. Try placing your mind in gear
before you put your mouth in motion.
How long did you wait for responses from Robert --- a day... two... If
he doesn't check in every hour of every day does that mean he refused to
answer you? Sheesh...
>> 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.
Perhaps this derives from YOUR misunderstanding (ie. YOUR interpretation of
the words Open Sources) of Robert's ideas. My understanding is that the
intelligence community must start relying more on open sources, and to
share information obtained from open sources with the rest of us. No where
that I can recall has anyone said that "little needs to be secret".
>> 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.
WRONG. Again, David, it is YOUR predisposition BEFORE YOU'VE READ
ANYTHING that you "understand". After Robert's posted his draft, then and
only then would I accept (and maybe agree with) your understanding.
David, you really need to read what you're posting! Perhaps this
offensive stand can be explained by something that happened to you at the
hands of the feds, but I had expected better from you (not shorter, just
better).
---
Glenn Tenney
tenney@netcom.com Amateur radio: AA6ER
(415) 574-3420 Fax: (415) 574-0546
