Re: Republican and Democratic party platforms on technology

[declan@well.com (Declan McCullagh)]

Dole's cosponsorship of Pro-CODE was a way to land some California votes
and a way to differentiate himself from Clinton, nothing more.

A statement he released on May 2 bashed the White House: "The
administration apparently thinks very little of the right to privacy -- it
presumes the government is entitled to all the so-called 'keys'  or secret
passwords which protect computer generate [sic] information from prying
yes..."

I predict that if he were to win, we'd see the fastest policy turnaround
ever. The moment he was inaugurated, Dole would pick up where Clinton left
off. Clipper IV, here we come...

But the benefit of having a pro-privacy statement in the platform (which in
fact was watered down significantly from that originally proposed by
advocates on our side) is that the platform covers Republican Party
candidates for any office, not just the presidency.

I'm told that the a Dem convention speaker may talk about privacy issues,
however.

-Declan



Tim writes, quoting me:

>Sure, the rhetoric might be slightly different under a Dole presidency. The
>focus would be on "halting the spread of abortion information on the Net"
>and "plotting by Communists using unbreakable cryptography."
>
>>(Contrast both parties with the Libertarians, which have a sterling
>>commitment to online civil liberties, reflected in the platform approved at
>>their convention last month.)
>
>I certainly plan to vote for Harry Browne, their candidate, even if voting
>only encourages the process.
>
>I first read Browne's stuff back in 1973, and, a few years later, his
>wonderful and "Zen Calvinist" (my term) book, "How I Found Freedom in an
>Unfree World," which I still recommend to people. As far as I'm concerned,
>Browne is the strongest candidate ever fielded by the Libertarian Party.