From: "Paul Spirito" <berezina@qed.net>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 13:09:57 +0800
To: "Brock N. Meeks" <declan@well.com>
Subject: Re: How the FBI/NSA forces can further twist SAFE
Message-ID: <19970926050152253.AAA258@antigone>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>:

>>
That's why it may take close to a year -- perhaps until next summer -- for
Congress to finish compromising away your rights to use whatever encryption
software you like.
<<

And next year *is* an election year. If nothing awful happens, it shouldn't be much of an issue, but sooner or later there'll be a big bang made by terrorists who've used crypto in the plotting, & then anyone who opposed the FBI line will get drubbed, perhaps fatally (i.e. they'll lose their seat). The single "best" reason for congresscritters to support GAK is CYA; supporting American business isn't a sufficient counterforce, especially when "big business" has become a dirty word for much of the American electorate, the affected companies seem to be doing damn well, & they aren't old pros at lobbying. Dead babies are more dramatic than annual reports (even if -- as we all know -- GAK will do little or nothing to prevent terrorism &c. Fairness counts for little in political campaigns...)

I agree with Declan -- obstructionism is the only way to go. Let's review the current situation:

a) Crypto know-how is globally distributed & impossible to annihilate.
b) There are no domestic US restrictions on encryption development or use.
c) There are onerous US restrictions of export of encryption software.

>From a cyberlibertarian/privacy advocate viewpoint this isn't so bad. It's true that lifting of export restrictions would get better crypto into more hands more quickly, but one doesn't have to be a Libertarian to believe that the market will fill that gap -- with non-US firms (possibly in collaboration with US ones) developing & marketing the technology; indeed, it's already happening.

>From a US business viewpoint, the situation *is* bad. There's a temptation to sell out b) in order to improve c). I'm not conspiracy-minded, but one should beware of differences in motive, particularly as we enter a convoluted, lobbying-heavy phase. What makes me optimistic is that GAKed crypto isn't likely to sell. Other than that, we'd be doomed.

Hopefully, legislation can be delayed until foreign companies have widely deployed commercial strong crypto, & US companies are demonstrably (to the person in the street) feeling the pain. Then GAK will be obviously pointless and stupid. It'll cost US jobs, which hurts (me, as an American, most of whose friends are American), but it's the best we can hope for, I think.

Silicon Valley -- the Flint, Michigan of the year 2000?

Paul

ujgdejoxenotejotmbgtang ircpqbgluzstizg