From: Jon Lebkowsky <jonl@well.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 06:28:19 +0800
To: Jonah Seiger <cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: In response to Declan's questions about crypto.com
In-Reply-To: <v03102816b051a8b024d2@[207.226.3.4]>
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970926165458.03321b18@mail.onr.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



At 03:09 PM 9/26/97 -0400, Jonah Seiger wrote:

>We also recognize the realities of politics.  No matter how much any of us
>might wish it to be true, members of the Commerce Committee were not
>willing to stand up and simply oppose everything.   It was not in the
>cards.  White and Markey offered them a chance to defeat Oxley while
>throwing a small bone to law enforcement.  We believe that passage of SAFE
>with the White-Markey amendment, despite the problems with the criminal
>provisions, is on balance, a step forward in the fight for encryption
>policy reform.
>
>That's why we have described the vote on cryto.com as a "vote in favor of
>privacy".  I do not expect that this will convince all of our detractors,
>but I do hope this clarifies the substance of Declan's criticism.

One of the realities of politics is that every gain for the opposition
contributes to a critical mass that can result in eventual passage of 'bad'
legislation. Though I tend to be pragmatic, I'm concerned that we tend to
give away too much early on in the legislative process.  Considering that
there is substantial opposition (by attorneys, professors, and corporations
as well as by crypto-anarchists) to crypto restrictions on the table, we
hurt ourselves if we declare a partial win as anything but a loss at this
point. Consider that crypto is hard to grasp for many, and we may be
feeding complacency with  unrealistic claims of victory.

----
jonl@well.com
http://www.well.com/~jonl