Re: How would Leahy bill affect crypto over HAM radio?

["Deranged Mutant" <WlkngOwl@UNiX.asb.com>]

Jim Bell wrote:
[..]
> I think it's going to take a LOT of pestering.  I didn't see a single 
> concern of Mr. Junger that sounded inappropriate, and there are a lot of 
> protections that could be added to this bill if people like him had the 
> opportunity.  A substantial load of stuff needs to be REMOVED, as well!  All 
> that key-escrow crap, at least with regard to the escrow holder.  If key 
> escrow is VOLUNTARY, then the key user and key holder can come to whatever 
> VOLUNTARY agreement they'd care to.  The only "key escrow" material that 

But it's more than breaking an agreement. If you voluntarily escrow 
your key (as with a corporation) and the holder is bribed to give it 
to a competitor, it may be more worth the holder's while to break a 
contract for the dollars the competitor may bribe him with.  It makes 
sense to have some criminal punishments for that.

> needs to be put into law are unavoidable criminal penalties for GOVERNMENT 
> AGENTS who induce people to violate their contracted obligations, and 
> requirements that any key-user be informed immediately if his key escrow 
> agent is approached on any matter related to his escrow agreement, 
> especially if this approach is done by a government agent.

Yes. In all areas of gov't. I'm all for the death penalty for 
prosecutors who push for the d.p. on people they know are innocent, 
for instance.  It'll never happen (at least not in our lifetimes), 
but it makes plenty of sense to me.

[..]
> Hams have been allocated a lot of (now!) very valuable spectrum space.  The 
> orginal arguments for that were probably:
[..]
> 2.  Hams drive technology (although admittedly that it's really so true 
> anymore, either.)

Internet to Ham links, though?  There's some technical drive there. 
It's just plateaued.

> 3.  Hams provide valuable community services, for example in case of 
> emergencies.  (still true)
> 
> But what law giveth, law can also taketh away.  A few years ago, a 2-MHz 
> portion of the 220-225 MHz ham ban (220-222 MHz) was taken away and given to 
> UPS, yes, UNITED PARCEL SERVICE.  Ostensibly, the reason was that hams 
> weren't using it adequately, a claim which might or might not have been true.

Who did UPS donate campaign funds to?

> Hams "police" themselves and their spectrum space fairly well, because abuse 
> (or merely lack of use!) may lead to the loss of the space.

An interesting internet analogy can be drawn here...

 
Rob. 

---
Send a blank message with the subject "send pgp-key" (not in
quotes) to <WlkngOwl@unix.asb.com> for a copy of my PGP key.