Re: (INFO) Leahy/Goodlatte introduce crypto bill

[jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 12:17 PM 3/5/96 -0500, Voters Telecommunications Watch wrote on
Cypherpunks@toad.com:
>       SEN. LEAHY (D-VT) AND REP. GOODLATTE (R-VA) INTRODUCE
>             "ENCRYPTED COMMUNICATIONS PRIVACY ACT"
>       TO THWART CLINTON ADMINISTRATION'S FLAWED CLIPPER PLAN

>VTW believes this legislation is an excellent initiative. 

It may be MOSTLY good, but I see a big problem.

[stuff deleted]

>ANALYSIS OF ENCRYPTED COMMUNICATIONS PRIVACY ACT
>
>The Leahy and Goodlatte bills are not exactly alike.  For the moment,
>we will concentrate on the Leahy bill for purposes of analysis.  We
>find it to be fleshed out in many areas.

[stuff deleted]

>DISCOURAGES THE USE OF ENCRYPTION TO THWART A FELONY INVESTIGATION
>This is probably the one provision we wouldn't have put in the bill,
>were we drafting it.  Clearly added to appease law enforcement, it
>creates a new crime to "willfully" attempt to thwart a law enforcement
>investigation by using encryption.  VTW feels that such a crime is
>unnecessary, but we're happy to see this is a fairly narrowly-tailored
>statute.  It only applies to individuals who are engaging in a felony
>and using encryption to communicate information while in the commission
>of the felony, and whose intent, in using encryption, is to foil a law
>enforcement investigation.

For reasons which will be obvious to anyone who has read my "Assassination 
Politics" idea, I assert that the operation of the central organization 
could be absolutely legal under current black-letter law.  I may be right 
about this.   The description of the proposed bill, however, clearly 
attempts to criminalize any encryption which may have the effect of 
preventing discovery of people who ARE guilty of felonies, or are planning 
them.

While the bill is not specifically quoted, the broad description given by 
VTW clearly suggests that it is an attempt to cover not merely the felon, 
but also anyone (including entirely innocent people) whose communication 
thwarts the ability of the cops to investigate the felon.  Regularly 
receiving encrypted, anonymous communications encrypted with your public key 
would qualify as a crime, I'll bet, if one of the people who sent them was 
"suspected" of a felony.


For that reason, I can't possibly support this bill; as usual, any such 
provisions will be abused, and obviously I consider any attempt to turn an 
otherwise-legal activity by private individuals into an illegal one is 
questionable at best. 


>This provision only applies to you if you are using encryption to
>specifically foil a law enforcement investigation AND the communication
>relates to a felony AND you are using the communication to commit the
>felony.  VTW feels this is a fairly narrowly drawn statute that is not
>likely to be easily abused.

Oh, really?  Why is it that I think this provision was specifically written 
to deal with ME, huh?

>
>THE BILL SHOULD INSTRUCT ESCROW AGENTS TO REPORT DISCLOSURES AS WELL
>The bill currently requires law enforcement to notify the Office of the
>Courts as to the number of court orders served on key holders and for
>what crimes the court orders were obtained.  The Office is required to
>make this information public annually.

What about the users themselves?  Why shouldn't they be told if their info 
was decrypted?


>VTW feels that accountability should never be in short supply.
>Requiring key holders to notify the Office of the Courts whenever they
>are ordered to disclose a key will allow the public yet another way of
>making sure that appropriate procedures are being followed to protect
>the public.

How about insisting on a provision which requires a key-holder to inform the 
source of the encrypted data, as well?

>VTW believes that a new statute is needed to dissuade those few
>over-zealous law enforcement officials from violating the public's
>trust in these matters.

I already have a plan to "dissuade over-zealous law enforcement officials."  
It is called, "Assassination Politics" and I think it will work as well 
against cops as it would against politicians.


>On the whole, we believe that this bill is a win for the Internet
>public and Internet businesses that require strong market-driven
>cryptography.  VTW urges you to become familiar with it and support
>Leahy and Goodlatte in their efforts.

By what measure?   A mixture of 1 pound of food and a couple grams of 
cyanide is "on the whole" mostly a healthy product.  Yet if you eat it, it 
will kill you.  It is those exceptions that make this bill unacceptable to me.

Sounds like it's about time to teach myself C++.

Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com

Klaatu Burada Nikto

Something is going to happen...   Something....Wonderful!



_
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBMTybRPqHVDBboB2dAQHAxAP/T4XHscUSy9SbcZLIvU+gDlaBilk7wX2a
RBk5dnbC/5bItWfYwes60p1/Y+0+8ol1BDyZHD/AfLbv3OQdIOSOyvw30A7s5p5d
6WdYSPa+KKomDnpK9Wa/el9h0KnJF/sU2A2c99cKSyMU1NDH3jVw9HU/Tq4J5He3
C81QvDySrgI=
=0Rut
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----