From: Ernest Hua <hua@chromatic.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 07:29:10 +0800
To: forsvunnet@alpha.c2.org
Subject: Re: New Clinton (anti-) Encryption Policy nnn
In-Reply-To: <199607310252.TAA21457@infinity.c2.org>
Message-ID: <199607311807.LAA08708@server1.chromatic.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



> It is for these reasons that we oppose the legislation (S. 1726)
> introduced in this Congress by Senator Burns and co-sponsored by
> Senator Lott and former Senator Dole.
          ^^^^                    ^^^^

Me thinks this is an attempt to associate this bill with the Republicans
("the other party did it!").

> the bill is unbalanced and makes no effort to take into account
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Another P.O.S. rhetoric.  ("emerging concensus", etc ...)

> The administration's proposed approach is broadly consistent with
> industry suggestions and the  conclusions reached by the National
> Academy of Sciences in its report.

Amazing!  Then why did the report conclude that key escrow should
NOT be forced upon the unsuspecting public?

> (We do not agree with the report's recommendation that we eliminate
> most controls on 56-bit key length products.)

Obviously.  Why?  I find this level of pure and arbitrary assertions
very distasteful.  If one can get away with making random assertions,
then one is not really responsible to the American public.

> Finally, we agree that key escrow is a promising but not fully
> tested solution, and are promoting the kinds of testing the report
> recommends as a way of demonstrating the solution's viability while
> providing stronger encryption internationally.

Yes, let's force the public to test it for us.  Which is what the
report recommended AGAINST.  Of course, once it is in place, it is
the standard.  Oh my god!  How did THAT happen?

> We will continue discussions with industry, other members of the
> private sector, the Congress,  and governments at all levels to
> arrive at a solution that promotes a future of safe computing in a
> safe society.

Bull shit.  Every discussion has been:  "Key escrow?"  "NO!"  "Key
escrow?"  "NO!!"  "Key escrow?"  "NO!!!"  "Key escrow?"  "NO!!!!" ...

> Supporters of the bill and administration officials opposed to it
> differed not only about interpreting  the facts but also about the
> facts themselves.

THERE is an understatement if I ever heard one ...

Sick of this P.O.S.

Ern