From: dirsec <unicorn@schloss.li>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 20:55:59 +0800
To: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Subject: Leahy Bill: Conspiracy, or Predictable Legislation?
In-Reply-To: <m0tzbcX-00092pC@pacifier.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960321040318.14126G-100000@polaris.mindport.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Wed, 20 Mar 1996, jim bell wrote:

> Likewise, nobody on "our side" has made the fact of their input known, 
> whether or not that input did any good. The question, therefore, is "Who 
> knew what and when?"  Who was consulted?  What were their objections?  What 
> objections weren't satisfied?  Since the bill at least superficially 
> addresses some of our concerns, SOMEBODY must have told Leahy what we want.  
> Who?

Leahy had his own opinions about the issues to begin with.  Leahy has taken 
an interest in all these matters since and before the Clipper hearings.
Your fault here is assuming that "we" are the only ones who know anything 
about the crypto issue.  "We" represent only a portion of those in the 
field who know what they are talking about.

John Podesta is a good example.  Podesta could care less what anyone on 
this list has to say, but he was fairly key in designing DigiTel 
clauses, and was deeply involved in development of Clipper as well.  Podesta 
knows the issues without being on this list at all.  Now how exactly it 
was that you came to the conclusion that someone told Leahy "what we 
want" (as if there was some meaning to "we" and, accordingly, as if 
"what we want" could even be defined) is a bit of a mystery to me.  

Legislators are not the morons you seem to take them for.  This is 
conspiracy buff flaw #1:  (There is a huge and silent set of people who 
think exactly as I do.  Because they are not heard, they must be 
oppressed or made to be silent).

Being a member of the cypherpunk list is not a requirement to know the 
issues.  Part of your problem is basic arrogance.  Many conspiracy buffs 
share this flaw.  The legislator's staff (who are paid quite handsomly 
to be in the know, and often hired based on their expertise in the first 
place) don't really need much help in pinning down the issues.  This is 
why I say that pointing to the legislators and yelling "they must have 
had help!  Someone in here is in cahoots with them!" is the height of 
arrogance.  (Conspiracy buff flaw #2)

Further, who cares who contributed to the bill?  Hundreds of people with 
basic roles in creating legislation are forgotten every day.  So?

> 2.  I haven't seen any analysis of this bill other than Peter Junger's, even 
> and especially from some people and organizations that originally came out 
> in favor of it.  If anything, those people would be expected to be defending 
> their positions, but they've not backed up that early support with anything 
> close to a believable position.  (Most are silent.)   The implication is 
> that they had no such early analysis done, and came out in favor of the bill 
> anyway.  Worse, they aren't correcting their position based on the more 
> detailed study that has been done subsequently. 

I'm lazy.  But if someone sends me the bill in full via e-mail, I'll do 
an analysis for the list.

> 3.  Because she's a negative barometer,  Denning knows that a positive 
> review by her would be as close as she could do to give the "kiss of death" 
> to this bill.  Her putative opposition is, therefore, far more interesting 
> to us.  If anything, it gives us a marvelous opportunity to ensure the death 
> of a bad bill.

I disagree.  If Denning wasn't in on the development of the bill to begin 
with, then how is it you think she is going to be crowned with some 
glowing mystical authority when she does or does not complain?  Even 
assuming she was given such authority, negative barometer to who?  
Denning is well respected in the field by "those who matter," (a subset 
in which your "WE" seems to be poorly represented) and as such I can't 
imagine how you think that her approval would in any way be the "kiss of 
death."  This is a combination of conspiracy buff flaws #2 (arrogance: 
because "we" dislike Denning, everyone else must, or if Denning spurred 
"us" into action, the bill surely would be dead), and conspiracy buff 
flaw #3:  ("Our" "enemy" is already so demonized, they could never agree 
with us).

> I'm waiting for somebody to explain to me why we can't simply re-write the 
> Leahy bill, take out all the bad parts and put a number of new protections 
> in, and send it back to Leahy and condition our support on that edited bill. 

Ok.  Who's "we?"  (Flaw #1 all over again)  And who says that you can't 
re-write the bill?  Be my guest.  You seem to be able to type line after 
line of dribble.  One would think you'd be a good legislator.  Certainly 
for all the credit you give lawmakers, your mastery of the legislative 
process, your expertise in predicting and observing the Supreme Court, 
one would wager you're just the person.

I'm sure you'll have no trouble passing a basically liberal bill that 
the FBI will scream bloody murder about through a "law and order" 
republican congress in the middle of an election year and in the wake of 
a democratic president's public relations coup in dealing with 
international terrorism.  Sure the republicans will look soft for 
supporting the bill, but at a time like this, security is unimportant to 
them, right?

And this part I love: "and condition our support on that edited bill."  
Flaws number 1 and 2 all over again.  You think Leahy needs our support?

Go ahead, Mr. Bell.  Rewrite the bill, send it to Leahy.  Let me know 
what he says.  FDR couldn't pass a bill like that today.

> If Leahy really thinks he's doing a favor for the pro-encryption people, 
> he'll support the corrected bill wholeheartedly.  If, on the other hand, 
> it's all just a fraud, there's no hope, and in that case it's better than no 
> bill be passed than one that contains a few booby-traps that will explode 
> shortly after the bill is passed. 

Really I've never understood Leahy's position to be a strongly 
free-speech one in the first place.  While at the Clipper and 
DigiTel hearings, it was fairly clear to me that both Leahy and Specter 
were uninterested in the free speech issues, (aside a few needed sound 
bytes) and rather the stagnation of the technology sector of the U.S. 
economy through export regulation.  (The strength and growth in this 
sector and the phrase "leader in the world" was mentioned several times).  
Specter cared less so even about this at the time.  Even in a public 
hearing I recall his concern was lackluster.  Recall also that Specter 
chairs the Select Committee on Intelligence.  Hardly a free speecher in 
any shape, even though many on this list hailed him as an provisional 
ally after the Clipper hearings.

>From this perspective there is no major turn of events or dispositions 
here.  Leahy's bill, what of it I see, addresses his main concern, 
exports and U.S. technology growth.  Specter was never much on our side 
to begin with.

In many ways a lot of the attitudes from those yelling "traitors" here 
are the height of hypocracy.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend." (of Specter and Leahy)
"Once an enemy, always an enemy." (of Denning)

The proper course to take would have started with a more accurate 
assessment of the allies of strong and unescrowed encryption.  Counting 
on Leahy and Specter was a major mistake.  Industry has always been the 
way to go (A little back patting here, I said as much at the D.C. 
cypherpunks meeting back when in the midst of Clipper, no one listened 
to me then either).  This is the reason I was so enraged with netscape.  
People listen to large, publically traded companies, most of whom are 
content to take their licks and move on right now.  Netscape was about 
the only one who could have put a foot in the door and given people a 
taste of what they were missing.

> As far as I can see, time is on our side.  Industry will continue to insist 
> on free export of encryption, and there will be few in Congress to oppose 
> it.  We already have the 1st amendment which SHOULD defend encryption, 
> unless that protection is implicitly weakened by allowing a precent for the 
> control of encryption.  In other words, we're going to win in a year or so 
> regardless of this Leahy bill, so we can afford to be hard-nosed with our 
> support or lack of it.

I find your assessment optimistic in the extreme.

I believe the concentration should be more in the direction of developing 
crypto tools that have long "half lives," stealth properties, and 
generally prepare for the regulation or ban of strong crypto without escrow.
I've called for this before, I call for it again.

Where are more effective (and multiplatform) Stealth PGP versions?  4096 bit 
RSA type keys?  256 bit conventional cyphers?

This political climate is more fear and fourhorsemen driven than anything 
else.  In the face of a democratic shift to law and order, and a 
matching republican shift even further in the same direction, the First 
Amendment, which is generally applied to public speech in any event, is 
unlikely to provide much protection here.

> Jim Bell
> jimbell@pacifier.com

---
My prefered and soon to be permanent e-mail address: unicorn@schloss.li
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed,       potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him."    in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55  E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information