From: John Young <jya@pipeline.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 04:20:53 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: BATFC -- Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Cryptography
Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19980310122240.006c38bc@pop.pipeline.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Tim's and Michael's exchanges (with others) are most welcome,
and constructively return us again to the most compelling aspect
of the encryption debate, the contest between law and technology,
one that has impact far beyond cryptography.

There are examples of the application of law to control of technology
in the President's most recent update of "The National Emergency 
Caused by the Lapse of the Export Administration Act of 1979":

   http://jya.com/hd105-191.htm

It recounts the activities of the Commerce Department -- mainly BXA --
for the latest 6-month reporting period, and lists as well the cases of 
penalties imposed for export violations. 

Some of these have been imposed for alleged violations over 6 years 
past. They exemplify what Tim and Michael are discussing of the 
various ways the regulations and laws are imposed according to 
policy shifts and wind direction of politicians. 

The report describes the beef up of BXA enforcement programs, 
and increasing coordination with and training of other countries for 
export enforcement.

All justified by a "national emergency" for which the underlying law
to control technology long ago lapsed. The lapse appears to be
a deliberate way to avoid having to define ahead of time what
technology is to be controlled in order that ad hoc policy and
regulations can be devised to fit, deal by deal.

This parallels the increase in indecipherable grand jury proceedings, 
plea bargainings and parole conditions, determined by protected
government employees. These, to be sure, appear to be close 
cousins of the bloated features of legacy technologies, civilian
and military.

It worth noting that Microsoft and the Justice Department are perfect 
twins of technology and law monopolies, using brute force and 
contracts to get their way, both clothed in self-righteousness and
both led by charming weirdos, both totally obsessed with each their 
own mad view of law and technology in the "public interest."

Still, there's some public benefit that these disputes are white collar
and not homicidal/suicidal battles of NBC warfare, at least not yet 
here at home.