Re: It's not over

[Tim May <tcmay@got.net>]

At 4:32 PM -0700 6/20/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>Perhaps there is more reason to be worried than Anonymous lets on.
>
>This afternoon I stopped by the office of a Congressional staffer who
>will, appropriately, remain anonymous. This person knows crypto, follows
>it, even truly believes in it. But they were pessimistic about any good,
>or even half-decent, crypto legislation leaving the Congress. Which
>committee will insert it? And what good crypto legislation would pass a
>presidential veto?
>
>DC crypto-lobbyists should have seen this coming. Instead of lifting
>export controls -- or even leaving intact the status quo -- Congress is
>about to make things worse.
>
>Perhaps cypherpunks should turn crypto-rejectionist.

Hey, that's _my_ line!!! (:-})

I've been arguing the "rejectionist" view for a long time. I even mentioned
this to Bidzos and Zimmermann, separately of course, and they both uttered
some variant of "Sign me up." Could be marketspeak jive in one or both
cases, but probably both saw the essential hopelessness of having Congress
reaffirm the Constitution. And this is all that was ever needed.

As I've said, the problems of whether some company can _export_ some
product, serious as they are to _them_, are as nothing compared to
mandatory key escrow, criminalization of crypto, and restrictions on
domestic use.


>On Sat, 21 Jun 1997, Anonymous wrote:
>
>> Let's cut all the doom and gloom here.  The bill isn't passed yet.  It's
>> got to go through at least one and possibly two more committees before
>> it reaches the senate floor, where we'll have another chance to defeat it.
>>
>> Even then the house has to pass similar legislation.  That will be yet
>>another
>> chance.

It will sail through. Trust me.


>> When Clipper was proposed, a wave of anger and opposition swept forth.
>> The same thing needs to happen now.  This fatalism is self defeating.

Au contraire, "Anonymous." I was there. Maybe you were there (your writing
style reminds me of someone).

What Cypherpunks did then was not to lobby for some law to halt Clipper.
Check the archives if you don't believe this.


>> Either you're part of the solution or you're part of the problem.
>>People who
>> say there's no use fighting, who give up, who oppose the efforts of the
>> crypto lobbying groups in the name of ideological purity, are not part of
>> the solution.  They have no right to complain if this law passes.  By
>> sitting aside and carping at the efforts of those who are trying to stop
>>this
>> kind of legislation, they are only helping to bring it about.

We are not "carping" about those "trying to stop this kind of legislation."
Most of us did not condemn Pro-CODE, though it had some flaws. (And
Pro-CODE II was an absolute disgrace, giving power back to the TLAs to
determine algorithms...might as well not even have it.) SAFE was of course
perniciously evil, as it criminalized a form of speech. Nothing in the
Constitution allows such criminalization of a form of speech. But I have
written much on why SAFE is bad leglislation.

In any case, all the much-publicized lobbying of EPIC and CDT and all the
rest to get "compromise" legislation through has led to what? To a
last-minute, politics as usual substitution and passage of a draconian,
Orwellian bill which will change the landscape of freedom in the world.

The only way to fight it is by monkeywrenching enforceability, and by
pushing the limits of offshore communication.

Or by more severe steps. They have earned it.

--Timothy McMay


There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.
Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."