Re: Leahy bill, legalize crypto

[jamesd@echeque.com (James A. Donald)]

schlafly@bbs.cruzio.com wrote:
> Obstruction of justice is already a crime.  Why add penalties for
> using encryption?  Intimidate crypto users?  Discourage use of
> encryption?  Give the feds jurisdiction over crypto matters?

There are several different interpretations of the most controversial
sections of the bill, it is vague and ambiguous.  The only
interpretation that I have seen that gives effect to the stated
purposes of the bill is that if a cop is investigating a felony, he
can demand your secret key, and if you refuse to give it to him, you
get five years for obstruction.   If the objectionable parts mean
anything at all, they must *widen* the already alarmingly broad
concept of "obstruction of justice".

That is to say, of the many possible interpretations of this section,
the only one that gives effect to the stated purposes of this
legislation, delegates judicial powers to cops.

> I see nothing good in this bill, except the export rule relaxation.

This bill is a net loss:  It gives the software companies considerably
less than they thought they were getting, and violates the rights of
individuals.

The best bill we can hope to obtain is no bill at all.  Crypto is
profoundly harmful to the vested interest of Washington, and the more
attention they pay to it the worse we will be:  Any bill that
Washington could pass is a bad bill.  Any attempt to fix this bill is
likely to make it worse.





>
>Roger

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because 
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this 
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/jamesd/      James A. Donald       jamesd@echeque.com