From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 17:19:28 +0800
To: "Declan B. McCullagh" <cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: New crypto bill to be introduced
Message-ID: <m0u2lOI-0008xVC@pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 08:35 AM 3/29/96 -0500, Declan B. McCullagh wrote:
>Two observations:
>
>* Jim Bell would be unduly suspicious if _anyone_ introduced a crypto
>bill in Congress. I'm not surprised that here on conspiracypunks someone
>would be raising alarums without knowing what they're talking about.

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, and 
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.


Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com