Re: May's Banal Rant

[Marc Rotenberg <rotenberg@epic.org>]

>
>Likewise, EPIC can and should announce that it will not support SAFE if any
>form of criminalization language remains.
>
>We would not find it acceptable to have a law which encouraged the
>placement of microphones and cameras in private homes, "voluntarily," but
>which then said "Anyone who does not participate in the Voluntary Safe
>Surveillance Program and who is found to have committed a crime furthered
>by the failure to volunteer shall be subjected to additional imprisonment
>of at least 5 years."
>
>This is what the criminalization of crypto is all about. It is not, as is
>so often suggested, analogous to "use of a gun" in a crime, nor to "use of
>the public mails." It is much closer to the examples I cite, language and
>religion, than to use of a publicly-regulated monopoly like the telephones
>or the mail. The gun situation is presumably related to the threat of
>bodily harm...I'm not saying I agree with "use a gun, go to prison"
>sentencing enhancements, but a stronger case can be made than for "use a
>cipher, go to prison.

I don't need the lecture. I've made the argument better than
you have and I've made it longer than you have. I don't recall
you protesting the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (1984),
working on the RTM case (a CFAA prosecution in 1988). You
weren't involved in the FOIA case for 2600.


>
>So, Marc can immediately prove the honesty of his point by:
>
>a. denouncing any "return address" requirements and refusing to cooperate
>with any Congressthing who espouses such wrong-headed ideas

Great plan. I'll watch TV and let Congress pass a bill
requiring mandatory identification for Internet users.
Really clever.

>
>b. denounce SAFE if it has any hint whatsoever of criminalization of crypto
>
>(Or of any of the (apparent) language about technical review panels
>deciding on exports...this is, to many of us, a code phrase indicating that
>SAFE will by no means make export of arbitrarily unbreakable ciphers an
>automatic process.)

This is getting tiring. Who do you think first opposed the proposed
amendment to Pro-CODE creating the review board?  You are behind
the curve, but you act like you're way out in front.

I'm probably in a much better position to criticize the failure
of Tim May et al to stand up for crypto freedom than the other
way around.

>Being a rejectionist, I don't see the point of dealing with Congress. The
>usual view is that "If you don't get involved, things will be even worse."
>I'm not convinced of this. It's often better to not lend them any support,
>not lend them any technical expertise, and devote all energies to
>undermining and challenging their actions later.

And the existence proof of this proposition is . . .

>
>And helping them draft legislation only feeds the process.
>
>I think it was George Carlin who said, "If you think you're part of the
>solution, you're part of the problem."

Good high school humor for a good high school philosophy.

I am underwhelmed.

Marc.



Marc.