From: tz@execpc.com
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 15:51:43 -0700 (PDT)
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Subject: Re: Crypto moves forward: Commerce Dept panel and SAFE markup
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970425201740.13101F-100000@well.com>
Message-ID: <97Apr26.185020edt.32257-1@brickwall.ceddec.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Fri, 25 Apr 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:

> My lord, I'm agreeing with Jim Bell!
> 
> Right now, no controls exit on domestic crypto, though strict export
> controls are in place.
> 
> The question is: Do we want to give up any domestic freedom in exchange
> for a relaxation of export controls? (Congress is, after all, built on
> compromises between warring factions.)
> 
> My instinct is to say "No." Let the courts strike down ITAR, EAR, and its
> progeny, while we keep our freedoms domestically. 
> 
> -Declan

I emailed Rep Goodlatte, but didn't get a response about this issue.  My
main problem is that it becomes a felony to use encryption for anything
that can be prosecuted if I take the legalese literally.  So if I have a
GSM cell phone in a car that is illegally parked, it seems that I would
fall under the definition.

I would mind it less if, 1. There had to be a conviction for the main
crime.  2. The main crime must be a serious felony (i.e. something far
worse than a single overdrawn check).  3. The penaly for using encryption
in furtherance should be less than that for the main crime.  4. encryption
had to play an intrinsic role in the main crime.  5. It must go beyond
common, everyday uses of encryption.

tz@execpc.com
finger tz@execpc.com for PGP key