From: Eric Murray <ericm@lne.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 05:11:52 +0800
To: tcmay@got.net
Subject: Re: The Grand Compromise is Coming
In-Reply-To: <v03102805afd5d070ad81@[207.167.93.63]>
Message-ID: <199706242102.OAA31118@slack.lne.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Tim May writes:
> 
> The terrible, terrible S.909 McCain-Kerrey bill is probably a negotiating
> card in the coming Grand Compromise.

Yes.  The tactic will be to use S.909 in negotiation to represent a 'fair' 
government-oriented solution.   Then 'compromise' with a 'balanced'
deal which includes all that the government really wants, with a few
of the more onerous bits taken out of S.909 as 'compromise'.

As Declan notes, Congress is driven to compromise.  The
government side can propose ever more draconian laws in order to
engineer the 'compromise' to whatever it wants.  On the other side, we
are stuck, because we have been asking for things that we really want, not
bargaining chips.  Even if we were to ask for bargaining chips that
are more than we really want, how much further than completely free
crypto can you go?    The government wins any game of compromise because
it can push its side as far as it wants, then demand that we meet halfway.


> It will make many groups _satisfied_ to reach "a compromise we can all live
> with." The various cyber-rights [sic] groups will probably trumpet this as
> a victory, as "the best we could get."

They will make it out as a victory ("send us more money") but in
reality it'll just be a little less of a defeat.


The rejectionist stance has the presumption that, if unwatched, the
government will pass a law so onerous that the people will rise up
in protest.  Unfortunately I don't think Americans will rise up in
protest over _anything_ any more.  Certainly not over basic freedoms.



-- 
                   Eric Murray  ericm@lne.com 
  Network security and encryption consulting.    PGP keyid:E03F65E5