Lessig

Dennis Kucinich is the only true progressive in the race with a good vision of where this country should be going anyway.

great. another bash mccullagh FPP, supported by a link to The Register of all sources.

well, let’s see what the good doctor had to say. (Via wave)

“We must develop flexible solutions that will likely require the use of Smart Cards and some form of hardened security in a reader or desktop device. For example, one state’s Smart Card driver’s license must be identifiable by another state’s card reader. It must also be easily commercialized by the private sector and included in all PCs over time – making the Internet safer and more secure. In an age where identity and trust are paramount, the fact remains that the only viable form of universal identity in the U.S. today is the state-issued driver’s license. … We must tighten driver’s license standards among the states. Fortunately this work has already begun, led by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators’ Rask Force on ID Security.

Beyond that, we must move to smarter license cards that carry secure digital information that can be universally read at all vital checkpoints.”

well, what does dean really mean when he says “we must move to smarter license cards that carry secure digital information that can be UNIVERSALY read at ALL vital checkpoints” if he is not calling for an ID card with biometric data identifying the user at ALL computers?

trying to paper over this by saying….

"We will not, and should not, tolerate a call to erode privacy even further - far from it. Americans can only be assured that their personal identity and information are safe and protected when they are able to gain more control over this information and its use."

doesn't really cut it. one cannot call for the mandatory use of computer access cards and then say we are gaining more control over our personal information without making the leap that government will provide the necessary protection.

so it’s back to the pseudonymity argument – where government protects access to our real identities while we are required to always proffer a fake one linked to it.

a good idea? ask valerie plame.

well, what does dean really mean when he says “we must move to smarter license cards that carry secure digital information that can be UNIVERSALY read at ALL vital checkpoints” if he is not calling for an ID card with biometric data identifying the user at ALL computers?

If he's not calling for an ID card with biometric data identifying the user at ALL computers, he most assuredly means that the smart cards should be of compatable formats. And I'm fairly sure he means the latter.

Well, I read Dean's remarks, and Declan's response, but I do not see what Declan has misread. Does anyone else know what Declan got wrong?

seth finkelstein, your remarks seem off topic (or is it assumed that any FPP that mentions mr. mccullagh is an invitation to assassinate his character?)

do you think this particular article misrepresented dr. dean's remarks?

I don't get it, aren't they all saying bad privacy things? What's wrong with the Declan article?

Seth, thanks very much for that detailed reply. I'm a big fan of Phil Agre -- always happy to encounter a reference to his work.

Two observations about this exercise: First, I think the distortions are more obvious if one reads Declan first, and then Dean. I read Dean first, so when I read Declan's paraphrases, I tended to mentally translate them back to Dean's original meaning. Thus, his depiction of Dean's proposals struck me as tolerably accurate. Someone reading Declan cold would likely take his words literally and see Dean's positions as much more extreme than they really were.

Second, my response to Dean's own words was already negative, so I didn't react with surprise when Declan's account struck me as negative, too. His claim that Dean suggested requiring card readers on all PCs -- a suggestion that makes me squirm -- is essentially correct in my eyes, although his implication that Dean named specific computer makers is a dishonest embellishment. I also agree with Declan's view that a national ID card would diminish privacy, so while I'm aware that Dean expressed his opposition to reducing privacy, I do feel he supported a proposal that would do just that.

I suggest that in most cases of subtle distortion, like that in Declan's article, we only detect it when it gives us a gut feeling that something isn't right. It makes a claim that we feel can't be true, or it presents a person whom we regard positively in a negative light. Only when we disagree do we investigate.

That said, upon more careful reading, I see two of Declan's claims as false: one, that Dean proposed requiring an ID card to log into any personal computer; and two, that while Dean now seeks to protect Americans' privacy, he once supported reducing it. On the first point, Dean clearly mentions specific Internet resources or sites that would require a card for access. However, I think a layperson could reach a conclusion similar to Declan's (although Declan should know better). For example, Dean mentions "ensur[ing] that employees accessing the state's network are indeed who they say they are," which, if you're a state employee, might indeed mean swiping a card before logging into your work PC. Several sentences later Dean urges his audience to work on "set[ting] the standards for securing devices for all of us, not just those accessing state resources." Connect these two statements and it's a small leap from requiring card access for state workers to requiring card access for all. A few sentences later Dean says that card reader technology "must also be easily commercialized by the private sector and included in all PCs over time -- making the Internet safer and more secure." For some people, accessing the Internet is synonymous with logging on, as in "log onto the Internet."

Declan's second claim is bluntly refuted by Dean's words: "We will not, and should not, tolerate a call to erode privacy even further-- far from it." Despite this, I do find it difficult to reconcile his words with my opinion of his proposal.

Yes, Dean is guilty of not understanding the technology he promoted. (Definitely a bad thing.)

No, he's not guilty of being anti-privacy.

This is pretty obvious from his remarks. :-/ Just remember these words to live by: "Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence."

--
Regarding New Hampshire, the one certainty learned there is that Lieberman should drop out. Does he really think he has a chance?
Kucinich and Sharpton should drop out too, but they have so little support it probably makes no difference.

February 3 should show some further shakeout; although I can imagine scenarios which would keep all the current contenders in the race, they don't seem that likely.

seth finkelstein, with all due respect, your attempts at tarnishing mr. mccullagh's character are not becoming a person of your demonstrated intellect and ability.

as regards the remarks of the late presidential candidate howard dean, all we can do is read the words he spoke.
we attribute neither malice nor incompetence to his remarks; we are simply taking him at his literal word.

"We must develop flexible solutions that will likely require the use of Smart Cards and some form of hardened security in a reader or desktop device. For example, one state’s Smart Card driver’s license must be identifiable by another state’s card reader. It must also be easily commercialized by the private sector and included in all PCs over time "

when he says that a card reader should be installed in all PCs over time we can only conclude he means what he says.

chris williams this may be a bit pedantic, but literal means literal.

you are adding words to dr. dean's literal remarks in an attempt to make them fit what you wanted him to say.

perhaps it is that the internet activists who supported dr. dean don't want to believe he would ever say anything contrary to their closely held belief that absolute on-line privacy is a fundamental right.

how is it a “bomb” for mr. mccullagh to place dr. dean’s remarks into context for his readers by mentioning the well-known manufacturers of PCs and the impact this may have on individual users? it does not seem to be a misrepresentation.

three blind mice, it's obviously a bomb (or a dagger in the back) b/c by naming those companies individually, it implies that Dean has a specific implementation plan that he has discussed with them, when that's not what he said at all.

i didn't care for Dean's speech much either, but trashing a candidate on the day b4 a primary with a 2-year-old speech and then making it look like the Dean camp didn't respond b/c they have something to hide (maybe they were a little busy ...) is sleazy journalism, imo.