tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7481330.post2870784372854820097..comments2023-10-24T11:05:25.288-04:00Comments on Mark Rauterkus & Running Mates ponder current events: Firmware Verification - DRAFT letterMark Rauterkushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17157914569686528007noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7481330.post-46365783894048020052009-01-03T09:37:00.000-05:002009-01-03T09:37:00.000-05:00Good points, from Dave E, as always, about the dra...Good points, from Dave E, as always, about the draft letter going onto my blog before the final one was crafted and sent.<BR/><BR/><I>Mark, I'm in favor of transparency because it is frequently<BR/>a tool for bringing about liberty, though I do not regard<BR/>transparency as a first-class goal of its own, and I think<BR/>most people do not (after all, most of us do not live in<BR/>glass houses, though modern glass technology makes this<BR/>possible). Many of us feel that George Bush's warrantless<BR/>wiretapping scheme was wrong--but all he wanted was for some<BR/>phone calls to be transparent.<BR/><BR/>In this particular case I don't see how posting a draft letter<BR/>on your blog before the actual letter is delivered to its<BR/>recipient advances the cause of liberty. Because we don't<BR/>control the government of Allegheny County, making a public<BR/>statement that we are unhappy doesn't force anybody to do<BR/>anything our way. I just don't see an upside to publishing<BR/>that letter now as opposed to two weeks from now.<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, I really do think this could be premature publicity<BR/>in one or more senses. First, if a member of the press reads<BR/>your blog post and calls Mark Wolosik, Wolosik can totally<BR/>shut down the conversation by completely factually pointing<BR/>out that he has received no such letter. I don't see how this<BR/>can increase our credibility with the local press, and can<BR/>easily see how it would hurt. Second, I think it is plausible<BR/>that Wolosik made a snap decision which he might back down from<BR/>if given an opportunity. Perhaps not! But since we're not<BR/>running a candidate in the February special election I don't<BR/>see what we lose by giving him a chance to explain himself<BR/>to us before inviting other people to complain at him.<BR/><BR/>All in all, I don't get how it makes sense for Wolosik to be<BR/>the last to know about the contents of a letter supposedly<BR/>sent to him, and I really do think it might have made sense<BR/>to see his response, or lack thereof, first.<BR/><BR/>Dave Eckhardt<BR/></I>Mark Rauterkushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17157914569686528007noreply@blogger.com