From: "A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security" <PADGETT@hobbes.orl.mmc.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 00:38:32 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Leahy and Mrs. Bemmis (now that's a subject line)
Message-ID: <960311112406.2020a2ad@hobbes.orl.mmc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


First, would like to comment that some people do not like some of my
beliefs. Tough. Do try to be honest and consistant about them. One of
them is that while the US is imperfect, it is better than anything else
I have seen (and have seen more than a few) and has the potential to remain 
great. 

Do believe in the "sovereign right of nations" to be a fact. Also believe
in human rights personally but do not expect governments to agree merely
because I say so.

Some favor direct action. I prefer the "theater of the absurd" & have found 
that most people are able to recognize absurdity when they see it, 
particularly if carried to extreems. Most of life is absurd to those who
are able to really enjoy it.

The Leahy bill is flawed in two areas. Sent a message with proposed wording
to Sen. Leahy via his web page but have not gotten a response. Have a bad
habit of reading laws without thought since this is how LEA and prosecutors
are told to enforce them - as written, not as believed. If an area is
vague, a court is required to decide how to interpret it, not LEA. If badly
written *everyone* loses.

At the same time am pragmatic enough to accept the idea that it will have
no effect unless it passes and to be passed today it must have something
like the criminalization statement. The goal here should not be to throw
it out since that would simply cause the whole bill to fail, but to word
it carefully enough that it satisfies those who reguire laws while being
narrow enough to avoid exploitation. IMNSHO the best way to do that is to
require that: 
1) A felony occured (curiously misdemeanors were ommitted) 
   and
2) That the individual to be charged was an active participant (before,
        during, or after the fact) 
   and
3) That encryption was used in furtherance.

Note: that in the US (1) and (2) seem sufficient for a criminal charge to be 
brought, so does (3) really add anything except words or possibly severity ?

Seizure seems to be a great concern of the group with the point of the
Bemmis Pontiac being brought up. For someone providing a free remailer,
that is a valid concern since the first question a court might ask is
"what was the motivation". I suspect that someone providing a remailer
and charging a reasonable fee to all who might want to use the service
might be in a much better position (not a lawyer so not allowed to know). 

One indicator might be easy to check: Has there ever been a seizure 
involving a rental car (Hertz, Avis, etc.) and if so, what was the 
disposition ?
						Warmly,
							Padgett