From: David Sternlight <david@sternlight.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 09:41:30 +0800
To: jim bell <cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: CDT Policy Post 2.27 - No New News on Crypto: Gore Restates
In-Reply-To: <199607142039.NAA14185@mail.pacifier.com>
Message-ID: <v03007602ae0f100db975@[192.187.162.15]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Boundary..3943.1071713593.multipart/signed"

--Boundary..3943.1071713593.multipart/signed
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

At 2:37 PM -0700 7/14/96, jim bell wrote:
>At 10:17 AM 7/14/96 -0700, David Sternlight wrote:
>>At 7:05 AM -0700 7/13/96, Deranged Mutant wrote:
>
>>>This is particularly problematic... if the mainland Chinese gov't
>>>requested a key from a N.Amercian or European (or even UN controlled)
>>>escrow agency, who is to say it isn't really for political reasons
>>>(even though they may claim the persons are drug smugglers)?
>>>
>>>Or what if the 'crime' was, say, discussing Mormon beliefs, which is
>>>illegal in Singapore (and I think Russia as well)?
>>>
>>>Or what if some terrorist was using keys escrowed in a country that
>>>sponsered terrorist acts?
>>
>>Your best shot would be to make sure the part about the system being
>>voluntary was hard-wired into any legislation or rule-making.
>
>Wrong.  Our "best shot" is to ensure that no "key escrow" legislation is
>adopted, and moreover export restrictions on crypto are eliminated.

Nope. That's some people's preferred shot, but may not be the best one or
even a realistic one. It's certainly a partisan political advocacy (in the
sense that people are partisan about this issue, not in the sense of a
particular political party). Yet that attitude didn't get any legislation
to stop Clipper I.

My point was very simple--if the government is going to say a system is
voluntary, make them put it in writing in the rules or legislation. We
failed to do that with Clipper I (when they said in non-rulesmaking
statements that they had no intention of making escrow mandatory--but
nobody said "OK. Put it in writing as a formal policy."). As a result, many
in government even at the higher policy-making levels are still calling for
mandatory escrow. Had it been in the rules, it's less likely they could
have overtly gone against a rules-making covenant/compromise.

It's simple pragmatic regulatory politics. It's how the system works, and
using the system itself to achieve one's goals is one of the more powerful
techniques around. You don't have to like it, but you do have to decide
whether you'd rather be "right" or get the result.

David



--Boundary..3943.1071713593.multipart/signed
Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="pgp00004.pgp"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="pgp00004.pgp"
Content-Description: "PGP signature"

LS0tLS1CRUdJTiBQR1AgU0lHTkFUVVJFLS0tLS0KVmVyc2lvbjogMi42LjMK
CmlRQ1ZBd1VBTWVsaGgwd2dIK05ZclE4MUFRR0Qvd1ArT0dCYUVrVVc1eUtL
NlBPaXR0THNDZUFZSGVDVVlISm0KN2t6Z0lQdEE5bEo5bjQxTmJOTXN3WVlI
cTU4eEFFOFkyalRCNjVWOEtFTzd1cy9iK0MyZm5iLzdnNXRSdUQxWgpvU25t
cUM3TVJkNk8rb3BoaGxTSEtOK041b1hEcHQ2TWxMblJtR1R5VVBTTkM1Uy8z
ZXE0VHZzMXFDWmZPSmxhCmNNTHliZXlLRGhjPQo9R2l4eQotLS0tLUVORCBQ
R1AgU0lHTkFUVVJFLS0tLS0K
--Boundary..3943.1071713593.multipart/signed--