[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ACM/IEEE Letter on Cryp
The draft bill which currently exists only takes the export controls on
crpyto. The provisions on key escrow, criminal penalities and other problems
are not in there and Burns staff have no intention of letting them in. The
actual bill will be introduced in about 2 weeks.
-dave
--------------------------------------
Date: 4/2/96 2:46 PM
To: Dave Banisar
From: jim bell
At 04:24 PM 4/1/96 -0500, Dave Banisar wrote:
> Association For Computing Machinery
[address deleted]
> Institute of Electronics and Electrical Engineers
[address deleted]
>April 2, 1996
[thank heavens it wasn't April 1!]
>Honorable Conrad Burns
>Chairman, Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space
[etc]
>Dear Chairman Burns:
>
> On behalf of the nation's two leading computing and engineering
>associations, we are writing to support your efforts, and the efforts of
>the other cosponsors of the Encrypted Communications Privacy Act, to
>remove unnecessarily restrictive controls on the export of encryption
>technology. The Encrypted Communications Privacy Act sets out the
>minimum changes that are necessary to the current export controls on
>encryption technology. However, we believe that the inclusion of issues
>that are tangential to export, such as key escrow and encryption in
>domestic criminal activities, is not necessary. The relaxation of
>export controls is of great economic importance to industry and users,
>and should not become entangled in more controversial matters.
As far as it goes, and considering that it's from an industry group, this
sounds like an excellent response to this Burns bill proposal. (Not "Bill,"
because it's still not available, apparently.) This response is probably as
close as we can expect to a repudiation of the Leahy bill. It still isn't
clear, though, whether the Burns bill is intended to be just an elimination
of export controls on encryption, or whether it will contain other provisions.
My question, which still hasn't been answered, is: "Does this bill exist
yet?" The answer is really not inconsequential, because if it _isn't_ at
least sketched out yet, then that either should give us the opportunity to
add provisions we want, or alert us that there is still the risk from
Denning-types of including provisions we don't want. Either way, action is
called for, if only action to keep somebody else from taking action.
I don't have any objection to a bill which merely eliminates export
requirements on encryption; that would be a substantial step in the proper
direction. If that's the best we can do for this session of Congress, I
hope we can achieve this as a stepping-stone.
Jim Bell
[email protected]
------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------
Received: by epic.org with SMTP;2 Apr 1996 14:44:17 -0500
Received: from ip17.van1.pacifier.com by pacifier.com
(Smail3.1.29.1 #6) with smtp for <[email protected]>
id m0u4Bhn-0008xuC; Tue, 2 Apr 96 11:25 PST
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
X-Sender: [email protected]
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 11:24:08 -0800
To: "Dave Banisar" <[email protected]>,
"Cypherpunks List" <[email protected]>
From: jim bell <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: ACM/IEEE Letter on Crypto
_________________________________________________________________________
Subject: RE>>ACM/IEEE Letter on Crypto
_________________________________________________________________________
David Banisar ([email protected]) * 202-544-9240 (tel)
Electronic Privacy Information Center * 202-547-5482 (fax)
666 Pennsylvania Ave, SE, Suite 301 * HTTP://www.epic.org
Washington, DC 20003 * ftp/gopher/wais cpsr.org