[3025] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
RE: The issue is near-perjury by high ranking U.S. government off
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brown, R Ken)
Tue Jul 21 12:25:55 1998
From: "Brown, R Ken" <brownrk1@texaco.com>
To: Eric Young <eay@cryptsoft.com>,
"'perry@piermont.com'"
<perry@piermont.com>
Cc: C Matthew Curtin <cmcurtin@interhack.net>,
Robert Hettinga
<rah@shipwright.com>, John Lowry <jlowry@bbn.com>,
Xcott Craver
<caj@math.niu.edu>, gnu@toad.com,
cypherpunks@cyberpass.net, dcsb@ai.mit.edu, e$@vmeng.com,
cryptography@c2.net
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 11:02:44 -0500
> Perry E. Metzger[SMTP:perry@piermont.com] wrote:
>
[...snip...]
> The press does not seem to be paying attention to the fact that high
> ranking U.S. government officials were, more or less, caught lying
> under oath. They probably weren't caught in such a way as to be
> punishable under the perjury statutes -- the actual statements were
> carefully phrased to be literally true though utterly misleading --
> but they were certainly caught in such a way as to make reasonable
> people wonder as to the reliability of the information they give out,
> even under oath.
"literally true though utterly misleading"
In other words what we now call "spin doctoring" or, in previous eras
of the world "public relations" or "advertising". Or as someone once
said (was it about the Peter Wright trial?), being "economical with the
truth".
Isn't that how most people assume they talk anyway? It's hardly going to
surprise anyone. Most people will thinlk that evidence given to such a
committee is self-serving, if not actually honest.
It's like all the scandals about "insider dealing" on stock markets a
few years back. Most ordinary people who know no more about shares than
I do about football didn't see what the fuss was about. They always
thought that was how people made money on the market anyway.
[...snip...]
Ken Brown (usual disclaimer - this os being sent from work but is my own
opinion)
