From: Declan McCullagh <declan@pathfinder.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 12:01:32 +0800
To: Michael Sims <jellicle@inch.com>
Subject: Re: House National Security committee guts SAFE, worse than no b
In-Reply-To: <199709100157.VAA16126@arutam.inch.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970909225353.8461A-100000@cp.pathfinder.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Michael, you once again fail to note the important political issues here. 
Sometimes civil liberties, freedom, and constitutional rights must be
ignored in favor of pragmatism. It is important at all costs to remain a
player in the game. 

Instead of opposing bad crypto legislation, we should instead work inside
the process, to gain a seat at the table. That is why it is highly
significant that both Commerce and FBI want to rid us of our freedom but
would do it in subtly different ways. 

-Declan



On Tue, 9 Sep 1997, Michael Sims wrote:

> Jonah Seiger wrote:
> 
> > None the less, this is much bigger than a quibble over details,
> > IMHO. There are important policy implications of this language.  And
> > politically, it is extremely significant that Reinsch would be
> > critical at all, considering that the Committee voted to
> > substantially undercut the bill (one of Reinsch's top priorities). 
> > Perhaps you missed this nuance.
> 
> Well, I know that *I* feel much better now that I know about this
> nuance.  Knowing that the rulers of this country have significant
> differences about who should control the universal key management
> and encryption infrastructure once it's in place (who gets the Power) 
> really eases my concerns.  Thank you.
> 
> 
> -- Michael Sims
>