From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 08:30:30 +0800
To: tcmay@got.net
Subject: Re: Bidzos on CNBC, discussing Leahy's Bill
Message-ID: <m0tu9c2-0009CrC@pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 01:26 PM 3/5/96 PST, Jim Bidzos wrote:
>
>I'm in favor of the Bill because it specifically prevents, by law, the
>US Govt from mandating key escrow. 

Justa sec!  I thought it was the 1st amendment to the Constitution which was 
supposed to prevent mandatory key escrow.  Why should you be happy about a 
law:  A law which is made by Congress can be UNmade by Congress.  

>Also because it would, by law,
>force export control of crypto out of the Dept. of State and into the
>Dept.  of Commerce, effectively allowing any crypto used in the US and
>"widely available" to be exported. 

While I agree this segment of the bill may be an excellent result, there is 
no reason that we should have to tolerate the bad portions of this bill to 
get the good portions.

>(The bill does a few other things.
>One, it provides for criminal penalties for key holders who abuse
>their role as an escrow agent, assuming anyone *chose* to use key
>escrow.

Which may, inadvertently, give the average individual the ILLUSION of 
protection.  Remember, prosecutions occur because the GOVERNMENT wants them 
to occur; there is no such thing as a "private prosecution," unfortunately.  
I'm not particularly afraid of abuse by key escrow agents, because I have no 
intent of using one.  

>Second, it makes the use of encryption -any encryption- a
>crime if used in the commission of or support of any criminal
>activity. 

Having not read the bill, I can't know for sure, but I'd imagine that if the 
term "support" is in the bill, they define that term as broadly as they want 
to.  Sorry, but I'm not satisfied.  If an act is criminal, let's prosecute 
the act itself.  Any attempt to prosecute USE of encryption must, 
essentially by definition, impute an INTENT to the user, an intent that the 
government will fabricate after-the-fact.

The government will also use this law to keep themselves in business, as you 
probably understand I believe.

>I think the bill would be better off without these
>provisions, but I suspect this is an attempt to give the
>administration something.)

Let's give them NOTHING.  The government is already hamstrung in their
attempt to restrict encryption.  I expect that nothing in this bill helps us
out in any way.

>I anticipate that the Administration, led by the intelligence and law
>enforcement interests, will vigorously lobby against this bill...

As surprising as this may sound, I hope THEY "win."  Because that won't 
really be a win for them, and it won't really be a 
loss for "us."