From: Eric Hughes <hughes@soda.berkeley.edu>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 93 09:22:44 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Clipperpunks Write Code?
In-Reply-To: <9305312100.AA22836@netcom3.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <9306011656.AA17722@soda.berkeley.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


>The anti-Clipper work is related, but
>probably isn't the core...fortunately, I doubt there's any conflict, as
>people will work on what interests them, so the Clipper stuff probably
>isn't affecting work on other core issues.

We are trying to build a sandbox, and the government is trying to
restrict the use of sand.

My apologies to non-US readers for the diatribe on US politics.
Unfortunately, if the US restricts cryptography, others are likely to
follow, either by coercion or by example.

I had dinner last night with, among others, John Gilmore and John
Barlow, who have just been to DC with the rest of the EFF Board to
talk to politicos.  Without being too specific (I leave it to those
who were there to decide the propriety of the details), but several
things became clear.

1.  Clinton has signed onto Clipper full-bore 100%.  Bush started it,
but Clinton, the ever-moderate, has told the eavesdropping community
that he can take their side on some issues.

2.  They're going to deploy Clipper without regard to public
sentiment.  That means that to be influenced by public sentiment, it
is going to have to be huge.  Educational efforts are going to have to
be large.

3.  Our government is looking at the "example of other governments" to
justify that restrictions on cryptography are not beyond the pale.

This is serious, make no mistake.  If, as in the White House statement
as reprinted in the Post, the government does restrict everything to
be Clipper, all anonymity and pseudonymity efforts are worthless.

That said, I also urge those who are writing code to continue.  To
those of you not writing code, however, I say start talking to your
friends and neighbors and communities and newspapers.

Now.

Eric