cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1996-03-07 - EFF on crypto bills

Header Data

From: “Declan B. McCullagh” <declan+@CMU.EDU>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 97fd862b16196797771f7c1ddcab60e9c5f493469331e80ed0555215fc6bee98
Message ID: <wlDmfa200YUuQO0G5d@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply To: <199603062155.NAA22301@eff.org>
UTC Datetime: 1996-03-07 18:29:45 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 7 Mar 96 10:29:45 PST

Raw message

From: "Declan B. McCullagh" <declan+@CMU.EDU>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 96 10:29:45 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: EFF on crypto bills
In-Reply-To: <199603062155.NAA22301@eff.org>
Message-ID: <wlDmfa200YUuQO0G5d@andrew.cmu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



[In reply to Shabbir's message. -Declan]

---------- Forwarded message begins here ----------

From: Stanton McCandlish <mech@eff.org>
Message-Id: <199603062155.NAA22301@eff.org>
Subject: Re: NYT: Encryption compromise bill introduced
To: shabbir@vtw.org (Shabbir J. Safdar)
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 13:55:07 -0800 (PST)
Cc: declan+@cmu.edu, fight-censorship+@andrew.cmu.edu, jim@rsa.com
In-Reply-To: <199603062014.PAA02169@panix4.panix.com> from "Shabbir J.
Safdar" at Mar 6, 96 03:14:01 pm

> The Leahy bill is actually much better than Stanton lets on.  Take a
> look at it, it affirms Americans' right to choose whatever algorithm or
> technique they'd like, as well as takes great pains to go on record to
> say that Congress treaded very carefully to preserve Americans' right
> to not use key escrow algorithms, and if they did, not to use escrow
> agents.  You don't get much more of a guarantee than that.

Sure you do: Goodlatte's more direct prohibition on the Exec. branch 
mandating Key Escrow.  What's the problem here?  We know Goodlatte's 
version, on this provision at very least, is better. Why can't we just 
agree that it is, and support that?  Goodlatte's bill isn't competing 
with Leahy's, they were introduced simultaneously in different chambers, 
and are intended to get the same message across. I can't see a problem 
with saying "we like this particular phrasing better, let's have it in 
both versions."  The entire point of all this is to have the same bill on 
both sides of Congress anyway.  It can either happen early, or (on the 
off chance it ever gets that far) in conference committee. Here we have a 
large say. In conf. cmte. we have almost no say.  Again, what's the problem?
What are we arguing about?
 
> Regardless of the ulterior motives of the White House, key escrow
> programs are still voluntary as read on the books.  The best we can
> write into a law is to have our rights reaffirmed.  Leahy has given
> this to us in spades.

I disagree.  A better thing we can write into law is to simultanously 
have rights reaffirmed, and send a more direct message to the Admin that it 
cannot tread here.

> Let's not soft-pedal this legislation.  

Let's not hard sell flawed parts of it, when fixes are not just 
available but already introduced as "live" legislation.

> Leahy and Goodlatte are going
> head to head with the White House to undermine the strongarm export
> tactics of Clipper and Son of Clipper.  They've stuck their necks out for
> us, we need to back them up.

Certainly.

> Just wait until the White House starts to act in reaction to this.  It's
> not going to be pretty....

No kidding.

I expect either an attempt to mandate escrow, a worsening of the export 
controls, and/or an all-out assault on American's rights to encrypt at 
all, or without some kind of worse-than-GAK registry or licensing.  If 
not all of the above.


--
<HTML><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/~mech/">    Stanton McCandlish
</A><HR><A HREF="mailto:mech@eff.org">        mech@eff.org
</A><P><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/">         Electronic Frontier Foundation
</A><P>        Online Activist    </HTML>

Thread