From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@access.digex.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 93 22:33:05 PST
To: koontzd@lrcs.loral.com
Subject: Clipper again
Message-ID: <199311230632.AA05407@access.digex.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



  According to a White House statement announcing the
encryption policy, "We need the Clipper chip and other
approaches that can both provide law-abiding citizens the
access they need and prevent criminals from using it to
hide their illegal activities."


Wait,
Is this the NEW policy?  The one that admits problems with Clipper,
or the old one?

It's scary that I even have to ASK this question.  If it is new,
what's the bloody difference?

"...and other approaches...." 

Smells like a tuna processing plant in here.

->
that can both provide law-abiding citizens the
access they need and prevent criminals from using it to
hide their illegal activities.
<-

Please.  Back to the old security v. privacy debate.
Get a clue Clinton
What's new here?

->
  Clipper "was forced upon [the Clinton administration] before
they had the chance to evaluate its impact," Bruce Heiman, a
Washington attorney representing the Business Software Alliance,
said last Tuesday.  "NSA sold them a bill of goods."
<-

Isn't Mr. Heiman being a touch kind here?

It was all NSA's fault?  That doesn't sound like
someone with the true interests of the "Business
Software Alliance" at heart.  Please forgive me if you're here
Mr. Heiman.  I'd like to know if this quote was properly within
context (or did the media distort it?)

->
  Depsite the administration's insistence that Clipper and
the rest of the encryption policy are voluntary efforts, many
U.S. high-tech companies have opposed it....
<-

Notice how it's never said WHY it was opposed.
Just kinda hinted...

The appearence of flexability here is an ILLUSION.
It's rhetoric.  Trash.  They haven't changed the policy,
just worked it around a little to make it look like they are
worried about concerns of industry... Please.  This smokescreen
trash makes me sick.  Clipper, or a similar proposal will show up
in basically the same form called "Splitdeck" or "Skimmer"
It's not the chip we object to you IDIOT.  It's the policy and
all the baggage attached to the bullshit goal of balancing
"Private interests and law enforcement requirements."

These are almost ALWAYS two opposed concepts.  Take a basic
class on intelligence Clinton and friends.
Security | Liberty
polar opposites.

-uni- Dark