If you think it would serve the cause, by all means. On the other
hand, my current public tactic of giving academic presentations and
writing a paper might be best served by sticking to just that.
Feel free to name me if you wish, but all things being equal I'd
prefer to lurk for now.
Regardless, it's exciting to hear that the story might be moving
forward (despite the frustrating delay).
On Feb 10, 2009, at 7:02 PM, Carl Malamud wrote:
There is an apparently wonderful 2,000 word article on various
pacer antics just sitting in the bag. Two photographs, we're
through fact check, and it has just been sitting.
I published my current paper trail:
http://public.resource.org/uscourts.gov/
I am about to engage in a careful game of brinksmanship with the
big liberal elite media ...
(Schwartz, by all accounts, has done a great job on this piece ...
I have not seen it, but from fact check, I was pretty impressed by
the range.)
Tomorrow, I will be posting several paragraphs of text as an
introduction to the privacy papers on the page above. The question
I have for the two of you is do you want to be named or anonymous?
Needless to say, this is all probably public very soon (both
Schwartz and I are terribly frustrated this hasn't been published,
we think it might be Thursday or maybe Friday), so I'd prefer to
give you proper credit.
This could backfire and we end up with no nytimes piece and only a
web page, but I think I need to move this out the door or it
becomes stale. (Notice I have almost all the courts starting to
get it together ... ILCD just wrote to me to cry uncle and I'm
expecting a letter from Alabama soon. Notice also the 11.17.08
letter from Peter Martin.)
Let me know if I can name names ...
Carl
--
Stephen Schultze
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet and Society
xxxxxxx@cyber.law.harvard.edu
A service of Public.Resource.Org.