From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 15:24:04 +0800
To: raffetto@podesta.com (John Raffetto)
Subject: Re: Sen. Leahy's "impeccable cyberspace credentials"
Message-ID: <199608280419.VAA01883@mail.pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


While I, on the other hand, am surprised by your over-optimistic tone.  
Bills in Congress are, technically, ALWAYS up for public comment.  And yes, 
they are almost always subject to amendment.  But the REALITY (remember 
reality?!?) is that once a bill has been officially introduced in Congress, 
it is substantially more difficult to add a good part, or remove a bad part, 
than if the bill remained on a word-processor or was simply put on the 'net 
for comments.

The status-quo system might have made sense in the pre-Internet era, when 
the public familiarity of issues and/or legislation was less, or 
communication costs to the public were higher, etc.  But today, when it's 
easy and cheap to put the text of a proposed bill on the Internet, it simply 
no longer makes sense to not accept public comment BEFORE the 
"high-hysteresis" environment of Congress has been entered.

Here's what is REALLY going on.  Congress wants to maintain the illusion 
that the public actually has some input into the way bills are drafted.  But 
in reality, they want essentially total control.  One of the many biases 
inserted into the system to ensure this control is maintained is to disguise 
the extent to which special interests (and Congress, itself, is a "special 
interest") get to dictate how law reads.  

Consider the alternative, and in particular the Leahy crypto bill, and even 
more particularly the portion of that bill criminalizing the use of 
encryption in a way which thwarts an investigation.  Suppose the pieces of 
entire bill, before actual filing, had been publicly posted on the Internet, 
and there had been either a vote or at least a collection of comments about 
the individual proposed sections.  What would have happened?  That portion 
of the bill would have gotten flamed and rejected, with a large majority 
opposing it.  Moreover, we would all have KNOWN that it had been rejected.  
At that point, if Leahy still insisted on including it, it would be 
tantamount to giving the 'net his middle finger, and we would have rightly 
lambasted Leahy, as he deserved.  Moreover, we would have known that someone 
was pushing that part of the bill, and could reasonably insist that he is 
identified.

But the way Leahy actually proposed it, in a package that had been put 
together in secret, it isn't clear how much Leahy detests our opinions, and 
he might actually have gotten away with foisting this on us.  

See the difference?  An open system holds legislators to a much higher 
standard, which is why they don't like it and is why we should insist on it. 
  An open system reveals to the public if their interests are being 
followed.  An open system will allow more people to become aware of being 
screwed by politicians, maybe even before it happens, and it will allow them 
to reject legislative proposals which contain undesirable portions, 
particularly portions which are written into a bill despite opposition.

_THAT_ could, hypothetically, become the "legislative process" someday.  In 
fact, it SHOULD BE the legislative process.  I consider the current system 
illegitimate to the extent (at least!) that it is biased against public 
participation.




At 08:51 AM 8/27/96 -0400, John Raffetto wrote:
>Jim -- I'm surprised by your message.  Members of Congress rarely introduce
>bills and say take it or leave it.  Rather, by introducing a bill, they're
>offering it up for public comment.  After introduction, the bill is referred
>to a committee, and perhaps a subcommittee, where there are hearings and the
>like.  The lobbyists swarm in, constituent letters roll in.  Then the bill
>is marked up in committee, and emerges in a revised form.
>
>If you want to vet a proposed piece of legislation on the Internet, then
>copy the text off of THOMAS and post it... then participate in the
>legislative process.
>
>John Raffetto
>
>
>>
>>I believe that it is particularly suspicious that these bills come into 
>>existance without even cursory "vetting" on the Internet.  Both the Leahy 
>>bill and even the Burns crypto bill popped into public view without any 
>>indication of how they were written, or any public input on their intent and 
>>scope.  Perhaps this "take it or leave it" practice is old hat to 
>>politicians, but frankly I'm disgusted at politicians' presumption that they 
>>can prepare a law with no identifiable input from the public.
>>
>>I am similarly disgusted at any organization (even if, ostensibly, acting in 
>>support of "net freedom") that assisted in the development of the Leahy 
>>crypto bill (and to some extent, even the Burns bill) because they clearly 
>>failed to solicit the kind of public input that such bills should 
>>automatically get.
>>
>>And in a sense, "the Net" doesn't NEED "strong supporters": what we need are 
>>politicians who are willing to LEAVE US ALONE!  It should come as no 
>>surprise that the call you frequently see among net-freedom- supporters for 
>>new legislation is that which repeals existing restrictive laws, such as 
>>ITAR and censorship laws.  
>>
>>Jim Bell
>>jimbell@pacifier.com
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com