From: "Shabbir J. Safdar" <shabbir@vtw.org>
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 09:25:34 +0800
To: "Michael Sims" <jellicle@inch.com>
Subject: Re: SAFE Bill discussion
In-Reply-To: <v03020906af8e6fb1335e@[207.226.3.4]>
Message-ID: <v0300782faf8eae00618f@[166.84.253.73]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


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