From: Ernest Hua <hua@chromatic.com>
Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 03:43:22 +0800
To: jimbell@pacifier.com (Jim Bell)
Subject: Re: FC: Responses to Tim May's criticism of SAFE, and a rebuttal
In-Reply-To: <199705032005.NAA29515@mail.pacifier.com>
Message-ID: <199705051911.MAA21827@krypton.chromatic.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



> > The NSA/FBI is NOT standing still while we are all bickering about
> > precisely which dotted-i and crossed-t to support.  They can, at
> > the stroke of Clinton's executive order pen, initiate effectively
> > THEIR law, while we must gather forces and summon Congress to jump
> > through enough hoops to pass effective legislation.
> >
> > In short, they can get what they want instantly, while we cannot
> > except through a long and arduous process (during which they can
> > throw many procedural and lobbying obstacles to slow us down).
> > The process is clearly in THEIR favor (and not without good
> > reason), and we must face that fact.
>
> Then let's force them to take that step, which (BTW) they haven't

Well, which "step" are you referring to?  The Clinton administration
is quite skilled at PR, and their intent is to project the image of
"middle of the road" and "balanced".  Of course, those are meaningless
words, but they sound real good in the context of the opponents being
painted as extremists.  For instance, take a look at the words which
the administration's appointee's use.  Bruce Lehman, et al have all
liken their opponents to David Koresh and other groups considered to
be extreme by the general public.

So far, the only high-profile "steps" they have taken is to put out
more Clipper-esque execute orders and call them "compromises".  These
are just maneuvers, but they still are effective executive orders,
none the less.

> done already.  They are well aware of the highly questionable
> constitutional nature of such a system, and I'm sure they're

That is why they back off prosecuting Zimmerman.  I don think they saw
a lose-lose scenario there, and decided it was better to leave the law
ambiguous rather than let it become well-defined, in the best case.

> worrying that not only would such an executive order galvanize
> opposition to such a plan, it would also delay for a year or two the

Ok, so are you saying that they did not make a totally one-sided
executive order without consulting ANYONE?  Sure, I agree that they
did not do that.  However, that would be silly, as it would not appear
convincing when they claim "middle of the road".

In fact, they still got what they wanted anyway (except for the
arbitrary key recovery which the NSA can do with the Clipper).  The
point here is that Joe-Small-Town sheriff needs the cost/speed/stealth
requirements of applying two aligator clips to get a wire tap, and
they got it.

> perceived "need" for the legislation they currently (and secretly)
> seek.  By the time the executive order is overturned by the SC,
> it'll be too late to restore it as Congressional legislation.

Yes, this is the point of the PR.  Keep the opposition from having a
major rallying point.

Ern

-- 
Ernest Hua, Software Sanitation Engineer/Chief Cut And Paste Officer
Chromatic Research, 615 Tasman Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94089-1707
Phone: 408 752-9375, Fax: 408 752-9301, E-Mail: hua@chromatic.com