From: "Phillip M. Hallam-Baker" <hallam@ai.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 13:42:51 -0800 (PST)
To: "'cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: Re: Tim C. May's Interpretation of the U.K. Proposal
Message-ID: <01BC393C.3A406150@crecy.ai.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




Huge Cajones Remailer <nobody@huge.cajones.com> wrote in article <5h8e8u$b3h@life.ai.mit.edu>...
> Timothy C. May wrote:
> > 
> > The U.K. may sense that, absent such "local content" laws, the market for
> > key signings, time-stamping, and other services will naturally concentrate
> > in certain markets. Longer term, the concentration may be more
> > globalized, or even in "cyberspace," but almost certainly not in Britain.
> > Nations may thus fear this flight of such services to other countries.

I think that this is not quite accurate. To begin it is necessary to understand the different relationship of the Civil Service and the executive in the UK. Unlike in the US the CiVil service is apolitical, it prepares policy advice for ministers but couched in guarded terms. It explains the advantages and disadvantages of particular  policies while avoiding conclusions. Thus it is a mistake to read too much into briefing papers.

What really count are green and white papers. Green papers are the first draft of policy and frequently involve "kite flying" exercises. A proposal to implement GAK in a green paper may equally well be intended as a signal to opponents to put their case more coherently as a positive affirmation of the policy.

The UK is currently having a general election which barring a resurgence by the Liberals the socialists will win. If you thought Bob Dole's campaign was dire watch the UK Conservatives for sheer and frequently adulterous incompetence. Ten Tory MPs have been accused of accepting bribes and the Govt manipulated the date of porogueing (ie suspending) parliament before it was disolved for the election to suppress publication of the report into the affair. Since two case have been proven beyond reasonable doubt this is a bad start to say the least.

Traditionally the socialist are far more likely to support civil liberties than the Conservatives. The Liberals have the best record but the best they can hope for is to become the opposition in place of the Tories. During the years of Tory rule left wing political organisations such as CND have been monitored by MI5. Crypto will undoubtedly have support from the far left who have frequently been the target of politically motivated surveillance.

>   Tim, at his best, interprets the U.K. laws from both a global and
> local perspective.
>   Certainly, any actions of the U.K., in particular, should be viewed
> from the lingering shadow of the British Commonwealth. The U.K., having
> ruled an Empire, is much more cognizant of the implications of how the
> structure of proposed legislation will affect the expansion of global
> aims, or the protection of indigeonous rule.

The UK has also traditionally understood cryptography policy far better than the US. During both World Wars the US managed to persue a crypto policy of quite astonishing boneheadedness. 

>   Although "local content," as Tim points out, is undeniably one
> of the major factors behind the legislation, the U.K. is also 
> undoubtedly positioning themselves to resist letting the *power*
> that comes from information *control* fall into the hands of
> others.

Its not legislation, nor even a proposal to legislate. Its one side in a discussion document. No need to panic! Instead we need to make sure we have a coherent lobbying strategy.

To effectively lobby the UK government you don't need vast amounts of cash but having a permanent office to coordinate grass roots activity is usefull. Corporations with a heavy UK involvement such as IBM and DEC would be usefull sponsors, not so much for the cash as for links to constituency MPs. 

Also note that now is a good time to press the issue. The US administrations policy on Cuba has greatly discredited it abroad. The Helms-Burton act is a clear attack on other nations sovereignty, that its primary sponsor is notorious as a racist hatemonger makes matters worse. Similarly a US attack on the computer systems of the EU during the GATT negotiations has not been forgiven. Proposals to allow the US to break secret messages in other countries are correspondingly unpopular.

	Phill