From: "Dave Banisar" <banisar@epic.org>
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 11:52:35 +0800
To: "Bill Frantz" <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Subject: Re: ACM/IEEE Letter on Cryp
Message-ID: <n1383307207.33041@epic.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


The export language comes from the origional Cantwell bill and orders the
Commerce Sec. to allow export of mass market software and allows somewhat more
limited export of non-mass market software dependng on what is available to
banks in that country. Its not ideal (I think the limits on non-mass market
should be the same as mass market- almost none except for a limited number of
"terrorist" countries (we'd get killed if we argue that those should be
eliminated) but overall much better than leahy's and somewhat better than
goodlatte's bill.

-d



--------------------------------------
Date: 4/6/96 6:07 PM
To: Dave Banisar
From: jim bell
At 01:22 PM 4/6/96 -0800, Bill Frantz wrote:
>At  9:58 AM 4/6/96 -0800, jim bell wrote:
>>[on the Burns bill]

>>That sounds okay as far as it goes, but I can see a potential problem.  Your

>>wording above is unclear, but if the Burns bill totally eliminates export 
>>controls that's great. However, we've frequently heard talk of "compromises"

>>like the Leahy bill which seem to relate exportable encryption to that which

>>is already available overseas.  There have been suspicions around there that

>>this is intended to keep the American producers out of the market as long as

>>possible, which is still a problem.  I don't think that's acceptable.
>
>I have no objection to the salami approach in this case.  The way the Burns
>proposal has been described, it seems all together better than the current
>situation.  We can fight the next battle after people realize that the four
>horseman are well and truly loose, and that the world hasn't ended.  When
>the Burns proposal has been written up into a bill and introduced, I expect
>I will be writing my congresscritters asking them to support it

Myself also, I suppose.  That's why I'm so concerned that it not contain any 
component that could be easily be re-written more to our liking.  The big 
attraction of the Burns bill, from a strategic standpoint, is that (by the 
elimination of export controls, assuming it does it) it removes the one 
major "must do" task onto which could be loaded other "features" that we 
can't stand, as the Leahy bill tried to do.  Once export controls are 
eliminated on crypto, it should become impossible to get enough support to 
pass a bill even mentioning key escrow, let alone mandating it. 

Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com


------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------
Received: by epic.org with SMTP;6 Apr 1996 18:06:34 -0500
Received: from ip8.van1.pacifier.com  by pacifier.com
	(Smail3.1.29.1 #6) with smtp for <banisar@epic.org>
	id m0u5ggW-0008xbC; Sat, 6 Apr 96 14:42 PST
Message-Id: <m0u5ggW-0008xbC@pacifier.com>
X-Sender: jimbell@pacifier.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 1996 14:40:21 -0800
To: frantz@netcom.com (Bill Frantz),"Dave Banisar" <banisar@epic.org>,
 "Cypherpunks List" <cypherpunks@toad.com>
From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Subject: Re: ACM/IEEE Letter on Cryp




_________________________________________________________________________
Subject: RE>>ACM/IEEE Letter on Cryp
_________________________________________________________________________
David Banisar (Banisar@epic.org)       * 202-544-9240 (tel)
Electronic Privacy Information Center * 202-547-5482 (fax)
666 Pennsylvania Ave, SE, Suite 301  *  HTTP://www.epic.org
Washington, DC 20003                *  ftp/gopher/wais cpsr.org