From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 04:20:23 +0800
To: abostick@netcom.com (Alan Bostick)
Subject: Re: [NOISE] Re: Dorothy Denning attacks Leahy's crypto bill
Message-ID: <m0tzfbg-00091AC@pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 03:35 PM 3/20/96 -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
>
>Alan Bostick writes:
>> Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > I may have to adjust my position on Leahy's bill. Any legislation that
>> > Dorothy Denning attacks so virulently must be worth passing. 
>> 
>> That could be exactly what They want you to think!
>
>Oh, God. This is really a bit too much, don't you think?
>
>I mean, its obvious that, whatever its flaws, passage of the Leahy
>bill would be very bad for the export control droids.

I disagree, strongly.  "Export controls" are worthless against the major characters they CLAIM they are intended to be directed at:  "Terrorists, drug dealers, pornographers, etc."  They'll get good crypto regardless, either from foreign sources or "illegal" export that happens anyway.  The main attraction of export controls (to the govt) is that if they had been played "well," the government might have been able to foist some sort of Clipper-system on us indirectly, by building up a domestic market for crypto that is designed to be incompatible with the rest of the world, because nobody would buy the exports anyway.  It didn't work, of course, but the Feds are still flailing away, trying to control the situation.

In addition, the government really has no choice but to relax export controls, because of industry pressure.  The result, I think, is that the Leahy bill does little or nothing for us that wouldn't otherwise happen in the next year.  If that's the case, we win nothing and we compromise away our rights.


> Has it occurred to you that the whole thing might not be a conspiracy and that the
>flaws in the bill might just be that -- flaws?
>Perry

This theory is easily testable.  As I suggested a LONG time ago (gee, it must be at least a week now!) let's have a go at re-writing the bill to delete all the bad parts, modify it to be good, add appropriate extras to nail down everything, and present it to Leahy as the minimum acceptable bill.  If those are just "flaws" then Leahy should have no trouble with any of this.  If, on the other hand, it's all a fraud, we'll encounter fierce resistance.

What do you think will happen?

Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com