From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 04:46:09 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Congress getting involved in crypto this year
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.980219122124.9768B-100000@well.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



I'm in the CFP computer room listening to CDT's Alan Davidson finish his
comments on a panel discussion about crypto: "Congress is getting involved
in the crypto debate. Bad things may happen, good things may happen. It
depends on all of you."

Anyone want to bet on the possibility of Congress doing a "good thing" on
crypto? Remember, there's no bill being considered in either house of the
Congress that does *not* have domestic controls on encryption: the
crypto-in-a-crime penalties.

Now Jason Mahler, from the Office of Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif),
is speaking. He stressed that the House Commerce committee "resoundingly"
voted down the FBI's bill last September -- but neglected to say that the
panel approved included a *doubling* of crypto-in-a-crime penalties. He
says Lofgren's plans are to push crypto legislation this year: "Hopefully
if we get it [passed] in the House in the spring we'll move to the
Senate." What about a presidential veto? "We're going to put pressure on
the administration."

Now Mahler is talking about how much support the SAFE bill has in the
House (yes, the version of SAFE with crypto-in-a-crime penalties) and how
it's a good thing. True, a majority of members of the House were at one
point cosponsors. But this is a misguided way to look at the situation.
Some of these "cosponsors" and "crypto supporters" voted for the FBI's
bill. Others, like the late Sonny Bono, ended up speaking out against it. 
Lobbyists are about to find out that the support for crypto freedom in the
Congress is wide but very, very shallow. 

-Declan