The debate on digital-telephony legislation in the March 1993 issue of Communications of the ACM was a fraud and a disappointment.
At issue was proposed Federal legislation that would require all digital-telephony suppliers--from AT&T down to owners of computer bulletin boards--to design their systems in such a way as to facilitate FBI taps. The legislation's FBI sponsors say they need it in order to keep doing their job in the face of changes in technology. Critics, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, say that it is unnecessary and that it undermines civil liberties. The stakes are high.
I won't try to debate the bill here. I recommend that anyone interested read that issue of CACM. It presented a wide range of viewpoints and raised many important issues. If you're not an ACM member, you can find it in any university library.
But I say it was a fraud because it was not, as advertised, a debate.
In a debate, discussants are given equal time to make their points, but in the CACM issue, one discussant got eleven pages and the other eight discussants together got eight.
In a debate, discussants are given equal chances to respond to each other, but in the CACM issue, one discussant got the first and last words.
In a debate, the sponsor doesn't take sides, but in the CACM issue, the issue editorial is hard not to read as favoring one of the discussants over the others: She gets more ink than they do; she is referred to by name while they are not; she "presents the case," "points out," and "explains," while they just "argue."
Rather than a debate, this was a guest editorial by Dorothy Denning, professor and computer-science chair, Georgetown University, with brief opposing views from others, followed by a long rejoinder by Denning. It would have been more honest to have advertised it as such.
It was a disappointment because Denning's argument, while well reasoned and clearly stated, was ultimately undermined by her extraordinary credulousness.
In their responses, three of the discussants explicitly pointed this out to Denning: She "accepts the DOJ's [Department of Justice's] and FBI's arguments uncritically," her "recitation of the FBI's assertions adds little to our understanding of the technical issues ... or the reasons for the proposal," and her "conclusions are based on the claims of interested parties rather than on independent research." Although she had three pages in which to respond, she made no response--in fact no reference--to this damning criticism. Personally, I think that anyone who would accept the assurances of the FBI on the issue of wiretapping doesn't know much about the history of the FBI, but that's not the point. Any government agency urging legislation that impacts our civil rights should expect to have its proposal scrutinized critically. And readers of any professional journal should be able to expect its articles to adhere to professional standards of intellectual discourse.
Denning disappoints both expectations.
Copyright © 1993, Dr. Dobb's Journal