From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 09:10:56 +0800
To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu
Subject: On crypto -- "The Grand Compromise is Coming"
Message-ID: <v03007811b0477b03ca0b@[168.161.105.141]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Tim wasn't entirely correct in June. McKain-Kerrey isn't the most extreme,
reprehensible bill: That honor goes to the Oxley amendment and the SAFE
version that Intelligence approved. (They would ban the manufacture,
distribution of non-backdoored crypto.) This is the danger of entrusting
our civil liberties to legislatures, which are inherently anti-civil
libertarian. No new legislation is better than bad new legislation.

Something close to McCain-Kerrey could well emerge as the "Grand Compromise."

-Declan

-------

Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 20:52:55 -0400
To: fight-censorship-announce@vorlon.mit.edu
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Subject: FC: On crypto -- "The Grand Compromise is Coming"

[A House international relations subcommittee this afternoon approved Rep.
Goodlatte's SAFE bill by a 14-1 vote, with some amendments. Rep. Doug
Bereuter (R-Neb.) voted against it on "national security" grounds. Details
to follow. --Declan]

*****************

Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 12:33:38 -0700
To: cypherpunks@Algebra.COM
From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Subject: The Grand Compromise is Coming

At 11:43 AM -0700 6/24/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>Yeah, I'm going to the markup later this afternoon. I ran into Goodlatte in
>the Capitol this morning; he seemed cautiously optimistic.
>

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

When even editorial writers for the Establishment Papers are against it,
when industry is against it so vocally, it won't pass the full Congress.

But it will have served its purpose.

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."

Somewhere between SAFE, a bad bill, and McCain-Kerrey, a reprehensible
bill, lies the Grand Compromise.

I reject it all.


--Tim May

There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.
Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

*****************

From: Eric Murray <ericm@lne.com>
Subject: Re: The Grand Compromise is Coming
To: tcmay@got.net
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 14:02:11 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: cypherpunks@Algebra.COM

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