From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 05:21:13 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: CDT Policy Post 2.29 - Administration, Congress Propose Sweeping Anti-Terrorism Initiatives
Message-ID: <199608011743.KAA03854@mail.pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 10:03 AM 8/1/96 -0400, Bob Palacios wrote:

>   The Center for Democracy and Technology  /____/     Volume 2, Number 29
> CDT POLICY POST Volume 2, Number 29                        August 1, 1996
>I. NEW THREATS TO ENCRYPTION, OPPOSITION TO THE PRO-CODE BILL
>The Administration's outline contains the following statement on encryption:
> "* Encryption -- We will seek legislation to strengthen our ability to
>    prevent terrorists from coming into the possession of the technology
>    to encrypt their communications and data so that they are beyond the
>    reach of law enforcement.  We oppose legislation that would eliminate
>    current export barriers and encouraging the proliferation of encryption
>    which blocks appropriate access to protect public safety and the
>    national security."
>
>While no specific legislative language has yet been proposed, this
>represents the first statement by the Administration that they will seek
>legislation to further restrict encryption.  Even more troubling, the
>Administration is clearly attempting to use the recent suspected terrorist
>incidents to push for a new and more restrictive encryption policy.

Even though it may be obvious to the crypto-savvy people in CP, since this 
press release is directed at a somewhat wider audience it would be useful to 
point out that none of these recent terrorist incidents involved encryption 
at all.  

>The Administration's attempt to leverage
>the public's concern about terrorism to block passage of the Pro-CODE bill
>is disturbing, and poses a significant threat to privacy and security on the
>Internet.

Same point.  Unless you mention that encryption wasn't a factor at all, you 
risk leaving the (unsophisticated) reader with the implication that there 
was, indeed, some crypto angle to these incidents.  Like it or not, that's 
the way public discourse seems to be done these days:  Unless a point is 
specifically challenged, implicitly it is deemed ceded to the claimant.  

Sure, Clinton did not actually claim that encryption was a factor, but it 
was there by implication, and the average citizen seeing his proposals would 
come to that conclusion.   Denying this specifically, you'd be "points 
ahead" and would be in a better position to shut down those trying to 
restrict encryption.





Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com