Subject: Re: GLJ Editor Responds to Conspiracy Theories

From: Mike Godwin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 12:42:04 -0700 (PDT)

On another point:

Ruemmler writes:

>II. RUMOR:  The study was embargoed and the Law Journal refused to allow
>anyone access to it.
>    FACT:  The three law professors who wrote legal responses to the study
>each had a copy.  Additionally, many people including folks at EFF knew of
>its existence, and that it would be published in the Law Journal, but
>never asked to see it.

Actually, the first thing I asked Philip Elmer-DeWitt was for a copy of
the study (this when he called me for comment on its conclusions). He told
me that the Law Journal had embargoed the study, and that Time had agreed
to that as part of its exclusive. I believed him (and still do, for that
matter), but offered to agree myself to any nondisclosure conditions,
asking Philip to vouch for me with the GLJ and/or anyone else. Nothing
came of my offer.

Steven Levy of NEWSWEEK, who did attempt to acquire a copy of the article
prior to publication, was denied access to it prior to the appearance of
the Time cover story and the GLJ. Ultimately, he acquired a copy from me
the following week.

Another reporter attempted to find out the source of the
embargo. Rimm said it was a condition imposed by the Law Journal; Ruemmler
said it was a condition imposed by Rimm and, uh, "the research team."
Indisputably, *somebody* is not telling the truth.

To the extent that Ruemmler's inaccuracies are a function of her
having been lied to, I can only be sympathetic. But some of her RUMOR/FACT
comments strike me as sufficiently disingenuous to cause me to suspect
whether she is entirely a victim in this.

I also must express some surprise at the willingness of law-review editor
to go the record regarding a factual matter without having done the
necessary research. Normally, law-review staff are pretty painstaking
about such things. 

--Mike