[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: FBI Files on Clipper Release

On Wed, 23 Aug 1995, Futplex wrote:

> A FBI document reads:
> # To ensure that this occurs, legislation mandating the 
> # use of Government-approved encryption products or 
> # adherence to Government encryption criteria is required.
> Ex-AAG Jo Ann Harris told a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee in 1994:
> $ we have absolutely no intention of mandating private use of a particular
> $ kind of cryptography, 
> I ranted:
> % Just what real legal recourse do we have against lying scum in the
> % bureaucracy ?  
> Brian Davis writes:
> > You sure are anxious to prosecute government officials.  
> You're damn right I'm anxious to prosecute government officials who appear
> to have willfully lied about public policy in testimony before Congress !

You must realize that there can be a difference between what agencies say 
is necessary and what policy ultimately becomes on that issue.  It is 
because of that distinction that campaigns, such as the ongoing campaign 
to allow exportation of strong encryption software, are important.  The 
FBI may say they want X, but the policymakers may take the FBI's 
arguments (always with a grain, or a bucket, of salt), consider other 
agencies views, public opinion, the persuasiveness of everyone's 
reasoning, and *then* adopt a policy that satisfies no one completely.
> For representative democracy to be even vaguely democratic at all, the 
> representatives need to level with their constituents as much as possible.
> I certainly intend to hold public officials speaking in an official 
> capacity about official business to a high standard of conduct.  

As you, and we all, should.  That doesn't mean prosecution necessarily.  
It may mean private protest (letter to Clinton, Reno, et al.), public 
protest, voting the bastards out, etc.

> > What is untrue about her statement.  Maybe she meant it's OK to use 
> > ROT-13 but nothing else ... 
> > How could that be compatible with "no intention of mandating...a 
    particular  kind of cryptography" ? 

> > > And you guys complained about the Jake Baker prosecution! 

> > Non-sequitur. How is the Baker case relevant to this ? 

I disagree that it is a non sequitur.  

Baker indicted for speech which, to some, constituted a threat.

You seek to prosecute former AAG Harris for speech which, to some, was a lie.

> > -Futplex
<[email protected]> > "Say goodbye to the clowns in Congress" -Elton
John/Bernie Taupin

Sorry I didn't respond sooner -- email got backed up and I'm not reading 
chronologically (for some unknown reason).