From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 15:14:42 +0800
To: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net>
Subject: Re: Why Leahy is No Friend of Ours
In-Reply-To: <adaf989101021004d99d@[205.199.118.202]>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.93.960503191858.1770H-100000@polaris.mindport.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Fri, 3 May 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:

> At 8:34 AM 5/3/96, Black Unicorn wrote:

> >While I believe this correct, it's worth noting that Leahy is fairly
> >"into" the technology.  He finds it entertaining and "fun."  All of this
> >mostly thanks to his one time counsel John Podesta.  Thanks Mr. Podesta!
> >
> >He's one of the more interested congress critters.
> >
> >> So, what is accomplished except "feel good" thoughts?
> >
> >Admittedly, not much.  I'm at least pleased he has a decently on the ball
> >staff however who can tell him what the issues are.
> 
> "Decently on the ball"? I hope you are being ironic.

Not at all.  (Did you mean sarcastic?)  His staff are some of the most
astute people on the hill technologically.  That their view might tend to
the statist side disturbs me, but I wasn't talking about their politics.
On the hill a competent and fairly reasonable enemy is much less a problem
than an incompetent publicity seeker.

> Leahy is no friend of ours. Recall that he chaired the hearings on the
> FBI's "Digital Telephony" massive wiretap proposal, and co-sponsored the
> legislation (with former FBI agent Don Edwards).

I remember, I was sitting at the hearings.

One should bear in mind that it was Specter who pushed for hearings
originally, and Specter who was giving with one hand and taking with the
other all through the process.  I won't say I'm happy with Leahy for the
legislation, but that doesn't change the fact that he has a clue.  In my
view the legislation would have been much worse and Clipper more imposing
had Leahy not been involved.

Mind you, I never said Leahy was a giant in the movement for crypto and
privacy interests, just that I was glad someone had a clue.

> This "sleeping giant" of legislation is still out there, and has not been
> consigned to the junk heap. It becomes operative--that is, the $10,000 per
> day penalties for noncompliance with the law mandating telecom systems be
> DT-compliant--in October 1997.

[...]

> Several of us (Black Unicorn, Duncan Frissell, me, etc.) may point out the
> practical difficulties involved in such enforcement, and the longterm dim
> prospects for success. But the fact is that ISPs are a kind of "choke
> point" for halting certain things. I have a feeling I know what my ISP will
> say if he gets a court order and a $10,000 per day penalty faces him. Those
> who access the Net directly, through their own companies and/or by having
> boxes hanging directly on the Net, will be less vulnerable to this kind of
> pressure. But the Netcoms, PSI, Earthlinks, AOLs, and such will likely run
> into  trouble the first time a court order is presented to make certain
> Internet phone conversations tappable....

Agreed.

> (I have long argued for this view that certain "choke points" will be
> identified).

[...]

> Sure, a few services will decide to fight such penalties in court and seek
> to have Digital Telephony thrown out in court. Deep pockets will be
> required. Maybe they'll prevail. Maybe the Burns Bill will collide with
> Digital Telephony. Unclear at this time.
> 
> But no Congressman who co-sponsors such legislation as the "National
> Wiretap Initiative," with its "1% of the engineering capacity" requirements
> and other such Big Brother Surveillance State clauses, is a friend of ours.

Again, I never called him a friend, but I still submit to you, that his
influence in the legislative process blunted some of the highly offensive
positions.  Sometimes you have to expect legislators to make compromises.
It's a fact of the "democratic process" that Mr. Loomis is so very fond
of.  The result is that to gain influence over a given area of legislative
intent and effort, you sometimes have to sleep with whores (and
occasionally they have VD).

> --Tim May

---
My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn@schloss.li
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed,       potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him."    in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55  E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information
Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: jimbell@pacifier.com