From: "Declan B. McCullagh" <declan+@CMU.EDU>
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 04:18:09 +0800
To: jimbell@pacifier.com>
Subject: Re: New crypto bill to be introduced
In-Reply-To: <m0u2lOI-0008xVC@pacifier.com>
Message-ID: <olLK_qC00YUvE6poEO@andrew.cmu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


A few responses to Jim Bell:

* Why would Sen. Burns introduce *this* particular crypto bill? Would
you believe that he wanted to appear cyber-clueful and net-friendly, but
didn't know exactly how to do that -- so certain people suggested that
this bill would be an appropriate way to do it?

* Why would Sen. Burns introduce this particular bill *now*? One word: CFP.

* Why would Jim Bell post anonymously? He writes:

> That is a silly conclusion.  The primary reason for anonymity with such 
> postings is to avoid controversy being associated with one's name.  I, as 

No, the primary reason for anonymity is to avoid being *associated* with
one's name. I know this may be attributing an undeserved sense of
precedence, but perhaps Jim Bell has realized that his opinions are
discarded out-of-hand by many on this list, so he posts anonymously to
regain some credibility. A message from anonymous would also work nicely
to reinforce his own position, allowing Jim Bell to claim additional
allies.

Anyway, last night I sat next to Dorothy Denning on the bus to the EFF
Pioneer Awards reception and dinner, and we chatted for about 20
minutes. She's a sweet old lady -- I can't think of anyone with whom
it's easier to agree to disagree. I asked her what she thought of a
number of people -- on Tim May she said: "Let's not talk about that."
She also said she's educating a House committee about crypto next week
-- I dearly hope our side will have some experts there as well.

-Declan




Excerpts from cypherpunks: 29-Mar-96 Re: New crypto bill to be i.. by
jim bell@pacifier.com 
> It's not that I'm suspicious of the wording of this new bill; I haven't even 
> seen it yet.  What is a bit suspicious is its timing.  Let's see, where do I 
> begin?   When the Leahy bill was first discussed around here, there were 
> claims (which, arguably, might be true) that this bill "couldn't be passed" 
> without the negative portions of the bill (key escrow commentary; 
> criminalization of encryption use, etc.)   More recently, it was claimed 
> that the Leahy bill was dead, and couldn't be revived by the end of the 
> session due to lack of time.  I don't necessarily challenge these claim; but 
> I note them and I also note that this new bill is going to run into the same 
> kind of time restraints as the Leahy bill would have, even more so.  Even 
> worse, this new bill will split off support from Leahy, meaning that 
> (everything else being equal) it is hard to imagine how this new bill (even 
> if it is everything we want, and nothing we don't want) will get passed.  
>  
> Maybe that's the idea:  As Tim May pointed out, at this time maybe no bill 
> is better than any bill.  And maybe what is needed is a bill to siphon 
> support away from Leahy, to ensure it's dead, which I presume this new bill 
> will do quite well even if it's never voted on.  If that's the case,  this 
> new bill may be a "conspiracy," but it might be a conspiracy that I can 
> actually sympathize with and support, even like.
>  
> Nevertheless so, I would at least like to look that gift horse in the
mouth, a
> nd 
> understand the motivations of the people proposing this new bill.  
>  
>  
> >* Jim Bell says we're "overdoing it on this 'List of Shame' thing." Not
> >at all -- we're proud to be on it! And you, Jim Bell, are one of my
> >primary suspects for authorship.
>  
> That is a silly conclusion.  The primary reason for anonymity with such 
> postings is to avoid controversy being associated with one's name.  I, as 
> anyone who's read my writing can attest, not only do not try to avoid 
> controversy, but in fact appear to seek it out, perhaps even to revel in it. 
>  Having taking a strongly anti-Leahy position before this anonymous poster 
> first appeared, it would be pointless for me to add my commentary in 
> anonymous form to that which I've already posted under my own name.
>  
> Furthermore, I've pointed out that there is no reason to exclude the 
> possibility that this anonymous poster isn't deliberately going too far, 
> mixing "deserving" names in with undeserving ones, in order to discredit 
> those people who are criticizing the supporters of the Leahy bill.  I can't 
> say this for certain, because there were a number of names on this "list of 
> shame" whose positions on Leahy I haven't even seen.  Nevertheless, 
> propaganda techniques are sophisticated, and I do notice a suspicious number 
> of people who appeared to want to "stand up for those people" rather than 
> standing up for the positions they took.  (Whatever they were.)
>  
> The implication is that the people who oppose this "list of shame" are doing 
> so primarily for PERSONALITY reasons, rather than on the issues.  I would 
> feel better about the whole thing if the people who volunteered for the list 
> had engaged in some sort of serious effort to show that the placement of the 
> other people on that list was unjustified.  Lacking even the most 
> rudimentary effort along these lines, I really wonder who (and what) these 
> people think they're supporting.