Previous lecture
| Table of contents
| Next lecture
|
| Previous lecture
| Table of contents
| Next lecture
|
The first talks were given today. I asked the three "U.S." groups (FBI, ACLU, and Electronic Freedom) to give presentations. I had not adequately specified the conditions. In every case, the presentations went on too long. I did not control or specify the situation adequately. Each member of the group spoke, which was unnecessary. I did not follow the rules that I had written in the original assignment. There was discussion. It was somewhat successful in that the positions of the participating sides were presented adequately, and there were questions from the audience which mimicked those raised in reality. I did not, however, adequately explain to the students what I wanted. I quote from e-mail I sent the next day:
|
I regret that I did not adequately supervise the debate
Monday. This is all quite unusual educational activity for me
in a math course, and I should have managed it better.
I wanted each team to speak for 10 minutes. Not everyone on the team needs to speak, but everyone should contribute appropriately. I wanted one report from each team, and the report should be 2 or 3 pages long (with references included). Again, not everyone needs to write the report. The team should allocate effort appropriately. Different people do different things well (for example, today I go to a meeting where the best thing I can probably do for my "side" is to shut up!). There are 4 presentations still to come. I will try to "manage" them more carefully and appropriately. I look forward to reading the position papers. Please send drafts to me electronically, in plain text format. Note that I would like the papers and presentations to discuss primarily cryptography policy. The presentations and questions did reflect in many ways terms of the debate now going on. The up-to-date nature of some of the citations was even more interesting to me. Thank you. |
| Previous lecture
| Table of contents
| Next lecture
|