From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 14:40:42 +0800
To: "Peter D. Junger" <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: Re: A lengthy preliminary analysis of the Leahy bill.
Message-ID: <m0twFC8-00094YC@pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 12:26 PM 3/11/96 -0500, Peter D. Junger wrote:
>
>This is a preliminary draft of my preliminary analysis of the Leahy
>bill.  In it I am primarily concerned with the affect---if any---of
>that bill on the constitutionally protected freedoms of speech and of
>the press.

[much scary but, sadly, probably accurate concerns deleted for space.]

>   "\S 2804. Unlawful use of encryption to obstruct justice
>
>   "Whoever willfully endeavors by means of encryption to obstruct,
>   impede, or prevent the communication of information in furtherance to
>   a felony which may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, to
>   an investigative or law enforcement officer shall-
>
>     "(1) in the case of a first conviction, be sentenced to imprisonment
>     for not more than 5 years, fined under this title, or both; or
>     "(2) in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, be sentenced
>     to imprisonment for not more than 10 years, fined under this title,
>     or both.
>
>This provision is completely incoherent.  There is no telling how the
>government will interpret it, but at a guess they will use it to make
>people reveal their keys:  ``if you don't tell us your key, we are
>going to charge you with impeding the communication to me of
>information about the felony I am investigating.''


Thank you, Mr. Junger, for your entire analysis, but particularly this 
comment on that atrocious section.   I'm repeating it, because I think it 
bears vast significance to the problems with this bill. 

The bill needs a complete rewrite.  

The one thing that makes me hopeful is the fact that the people around here 
who seem to think that this bill must be accepted as written, with this 
section included, all claim that there is great opposition to it.  If that 
is true, then all I need to do is to convince people who nominally should be 
on "our" side that the bill is bad, as written.  Mr. Junger's careful, 
albeit prelimary analysis does that in spades.


Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com


Klaatu Burada Nikto

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBMUSagPqHVDBboB2dAQEXpwQAiLfZk/xPqhTI0UNbgAY/oQh7wR5ElRYH
Cb3QZDHGrPmPBF7MZEFW9bL9U+U/33l0kK/q/20vGvLZMFALImcOPgdFjcidjVRA
zqHAHPTnJWsyROJsv1fgO2l6u0QRkONFxT5MF2tyqGp9ArYAOSwZy4NMXgwX4CrM
QnqwvuKnZfU=
=Qm0E
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----