From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 00:15:07 +0800
To: Marc Rotenberg <rotenberg@epic.org>
Subject: Re: TWO Letters on SAFE
In-Reply-To: <v0300780aaf8fc2572aac@[204.91.138.22]>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970502084700.12526B-100000@well.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Thanks, Marc, for posting the URL for CDT's letter urging the House
subcommittee to approve SAFE without amendment. I was quoting from memory.

No, Shabbir, I don't think I owe anyone a "big fucking apology."

-Declan


On Fri, 2 May 1997, Marc Rotenberg wrote:

> 
> 
> Shabbir is a very good organizer and often very busy, which
> may explain the confusion about the TWO letters that were
> sent out regarding SAFE.
> 
> CDT sent a letter to Hon. Howard Conable, the chair of the
> Subcommittee, on April 24 which said that "CDT strongly urges
> you to report H.R. 695, the SAFE Act, out of the Courts
> and Intellectual Property Subcommittee without amendment."
> [The CDT letter is at
> http://www.cdt.org/crypto/legis_105/SAFE/970424_CDT_ltr.html]
> 
> EPIC helped coordinate a different letter for the Internet
> Privacy Coalition, which went to Rep. Goodlatte on April
> 28 and said
> 
>      While expressing our support for the measure, we wish
>      also to state our concern about one provision contained
>      in the bill. We believe that this provision, which would
>      create new criminal penalties for the use of encryption in
>      furtherance of a crime, could undermine the otherwise laudable
>      goals of the legislation. For the reasons set forth below, we
>      recommend that this provision be reconsidered when the Committee
>      considers the bill.
> 
> The IPC letter was signed by 26 privacy groups, user organizations,
> private companies, and trade associations. [The IPC letter is
> at http://www.privacy.org/ipc/safe_letter.html ]
> 
> 
> Marc Rotenberg
> EPIC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At 8:55 AM -0500 5/2/97, Shabbir J. Safdar wrote:
> >At 8:49 AM -0400 5/2/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> >>Two quick points:
> >>
> >>* Didn't CDT, unlike the other groups like EPIC/ACLU/EFF/ATR, send a
> >>letter to the House subcommittee on April 29 urging that SAFE be approved
> >>without any changes? (I'm in Oklahoma right now and I have a copy of that
> >>letter in my office in DC, but that's what I remember.)
> >
> >Declan, I can't believe you did your research so poorly.  Go look at the
> >Internet Privacy Coalition letter at
> >http://www.privacy.org/ipc/safe_letter.html or go to the crypto.com SAFE
> >bill page at http://www.crypto.com/safe_bill/ and read the pointer from
> >there.
> >
> >You'll see that CDT signed the very same letter that EPIC, ACLU, EFF, ATR,
> >Eagle Forum, VTW, and PGP all signed.
> >
> >Since you've been laboring under this mistaken impression, you owe somebody
> >at CDT a big fucking apology.
> >
> >-S
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>On Thu, 1 May 1997, Shabbir J. Safdar wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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:
> >>>
> >>>    "The bill could be read as prohibiting the United States government
> >>>     from using appropriate incentives to support a key management
> >>>     infrastructure and KEY RECOVERY." [emphasis added]
> >>>
> >>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> I'm also puzzled by the fact that CDT is being criticized pretty much
> >>> solely, even though the entire Internet Privacy Coalition, and several
> >>> other groups all wrote a letter of support of the bill with only a
> >>> criticism of one provision.  However the overall statement was of support.
> >>> (see http://www.privacy.org/ipc/safe_letter.html)
> >>>
> >>> As far as I can tell, everyone criticizing the bill either thinks that:
> >>>
> >>> 	a) CDT actually runs all these groups behind the scenes, or
> >>> 	b) pretty much all of the Internet advocates believe that this bill
> >>>            is needed and are doing the best they can with what Congress has
> >>>            written.
> >>>
> >>> 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?
> >>>
> >>> Here's a great excerpt from the Internet Privacy Coalition letter:
> >>>
> >>>   The pending bill provides a positive framework for the reforms that are
> >>>   long overdue in this critical area. It makes clear that the sale or use
> >>> of
> >>>   encryption, a vital technique to promote network security and individual
> >>>   privacy, should not be restricted in the United States. This is the view
> >>>   widely shared by users of the Internet and the computer and
> >>>communications
> >>>   industry. It was also a central recommendation of the
> >>>   report of the National Research Council last year.
> >>>
> >>> Looks like widespread support from people who study this issue for living.
> >>> I'm glad to be counted among them.
> >>>
> >>> -S
> >>>
> >>> -Shabbir
> >>>
> >>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
>