From: Omegaman <omegam@cmq.com>
Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 11:57:41 +0800
To: "Shabbir J. Safdar" <cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Since when is supporting unrestricted crypto unreasonable?
In-Reply-To: <v03020906af8e6fb1335e@[207.226.3.4]>
Message-ID: <199705070346.WAA10035@jolietjake.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


"Shabbir J. Safdar" <shabbir@vtw.org> writes:
 
> 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?  

No.  Perhaps we consider accepting the bill with such glaring
loopholes unreasonable.  

> I would think so, as critics of SAFE include the Clinton
> Administration.  Is that the kind of company that cypherpunks keep?

I'll let this remark stand on it's own merit.
 
> Looks like widespread support from people who study this issue for living.
> I'm glad to be counted among them.

Interesting dismissal and point of view from an organization which is
ostensibly a promoter of civil liberties.  The trace of elitism in
this quote is an irony that this reader didn't miss.  "Democracy,"
indeed.


It appears that in your daily study of this issue -- and I'm assuming
that familiarity with Cypherpunks is part of that -- you missed some
of the differences between many Cypherpunks and your organization(s).

We all agree that unrestricted/unregulated Cryptography is a "good
thing."   However, the compromises ACLU, EPIC, EFF, CDT, etc. are
willing to make with this bill do not further this ultimate goal.
Unless the administration intends to simply ignore the obvious
loopholes. 

There are also some philosophical differences.

To quote Alan Davidson:
> There is a right we don't have now: The right to export strong
> cryptography. The result is that strong, easy-to-use encryption is not
> seamlessly integrated into most popular products, and is not accessible to
> most people

Actually, the government doesn't have the right to impose restrictions
on strong cryptography.  Yet time and again, it has attempted to do
so, resulting in -- as Alan noted -- a chilling effect on the spread
of strong crypto in the mass market.

And government will continue attempts to reach into regulation of
crypto.  This is why compromise is unacceptable.  Far better to work
around it attempting to spread cryptography far and wide while
legislators and administrators struggle to slip their agenda past your
watchful eyes.


But there is another force at work here.  There is no "killer" crypto
app in the eyes of the masses.  PGP 2.6xxxxx is probably the closest
thing we currently have in this regard.  Furthermore, crypto still
remains largely below the public radar.  While government officials
can trot out the four horsemen with predictable reactions, the
proverbial "other side" has few arguments that carry a similar
impact.  

We can cite abuses, encroachment on civil liberties, increasing
surveillance efforts, and numerous other frightening developments.
None of these have broken into the mass conciousness in the same way
that "protecting the children/public safety" arguments have.  <Irony>
Labels like "militia", "extreme edge" and "radical" also carry alot of
weight in the increasingly paranoid public mind.</Irony>

Until some outrageous surveillance or crypto related abuse occurs
(cryptogate) or is uncovered , it will remain difficult to garner real
mass public support.  The Newt Gingrich cell-phone fiasco came as
close as anything yet.  Commercial interests "get it" & support crypto
for wholly different reasons.

I'm starting to think that until someone actually gets arrested and
jailed for using strong, unbreakable encryption that is "suspected" of
supporting a crime, little will change.  In the meantime, the
administration, Congress, and the TLA's will keep getting closer to
achieving their goals.