From: Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 18:17:29 +0800
To: abd@cdt.org
Subject: Re: SAFE Bill discussion
In-Reply-To: <v0300782faf8eae00618f@[166.84.253.73]>
Message-ID: <199705020752.IAA00794@server.test.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Shabbir Safdar <shabbir@vtw.org> writes:
> The Administration hates this bill, because it threatens their ability to
> roll out Key Recovery.  They've said as much in the letter Declan forwarded:
> 
> Do you think that if this bill helped the Administration, that they'd be
> out there urging the subcommittee chairman to stop it?  I think not.
> [...]
> You're pretty hard on CDT, but EFF, EPIC, the ACLU, VTW, Americans for Tax
> Reform, the Association for Computing Machinery, Computer Professionals for
> Social Responsiblity, Eagle Forum, the National Association for Criminal
> Defense Lawyers, and PGP Inc all signed this letter.
> 
> Can you consider, perhaps, for a second, that critics of SAFE are being
> unreasonable?  I would think so, as critics of SAFE include the Clinton
> Administration.  Is that the kind of company that cypherpunks keep?

Those arguing in favour the SAFE bill claim it will make encryption
freely exportable.  They also claim that as a result of this we will
see encryption in mass market software.  Both are clearly attractive.

The SAFE bill also makes it a crime to use crypto in furtherance of a
crime (sentence += 5 years?).

The two in combination are problematic:

If microsoft products mostly include crypto which is turned on by
default, then everyone is using crypto.  So if one is unlucky enough
to be singled out for government harrassment for whatever "crime",
it's just a blanket law which allows the sentence to be increased by 5
years for nearly everyone in a few years.

In 10 to 20 years time your car, your mobile phone, your television,
your telephone, your brief-case, probably your toaster will have
crypto in it (your mobile phone and sat decoder already do).

Adding criminalization of use in furtherance of a crime is STUPID.
Mobile phones are a good example, they include crypto (at least GSM
does, even if it is naff, and only the link to the base station).  Say
the government designates you as a "criminal", and you use a mobile
phone, surely this is using crypto to further a crime?  It will make
it more difficult for the Feds to tap your line, right?  Especially if
you are using stolen phone ID cards.  Mobile phones are getting
cheaper, and more widespread.

It's similar to imposing restrictions on other technologies in their
early stages, say:

  "use of automobiles in furtherance of a crime will add 5 years to your
   sentence."

  "use of the new telephone service will add 5 years to your sentence"

I hope that the coalition of lobbying groups are not supporting SAFE
if this criminalization clause is there.

If you're going to support it at all, support it on the CONDITION that
this is removed.

However, messing with politicians is a dangerous hobby, read the fine
print real carefully, or you may very well actually be unwittingly
helping the enemy.

Adam
-- 
Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/

print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>
)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`