1997-09-12 - Re: unSAFE won’t pass?

Header Data

From: Lee Tien <tien@well.com>
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Message Hash: d738e94d288593440d08d82c438416af386696dd1d6e7d36931b511d765a16e9
Message ID: <v03007809b03f58869b1d@[]>
Reply To: <19970912172053.2605.qmail@hotmail.com>
UTC Datetime: 1997-09-12 20:22:12 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 04:22:12 +0800

Raw message

From: Lee Tien <tien@well.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 04:22:12 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: unSAFE won't pass?
In-Reply-To: <19970912172053.2605.qmail@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <v03007809b03f58869b1d@[]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

At 9:20 AM -0800 9/12/97, John Smith wrote:
>So, does anybody besides me think these crypto bills aren't going
>anywhere?  I still think it's just a trick to get the original bill
>killed.  No way are most congresscritters going to vote for this
>with all the opposition that's coming out.  Just my opinion...

The govt never plays just one game.  This was for them a nice piece of
judo, taking the momentum built up by the lobbying for SAFE, and
redirecting it.

Clinton would veto a "good" bill, and I seriously doubt that anyone ever
thought a veto-proof "good" bill could be fashioned.  The status quo has
great inertia.  Presidents prefer not to veto bills if they don't have to,
though -- the most effective way to use a veto is to make the proponents of
legislation trip over their own feet in trying to get a compromise.

The administration also uses this process as a probe.  Drafts are floated,
and they get feedback.  They learn where the congressfolks really are, see
how effective the tried and true classified briefing is, see how effective
the opposition is.  Many positions can be tested with commitment to none
because there's "internal conflict."

It looks like no-lose for the administration.  If unSAFE passes, they're
ecstatic.  If nothing passes, nothing changes.  Export controls are still
there, and the "voluntary" recoverable crypto initiative continues apace.