[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Leahy Bill: Conspiracy, or Predictable Legislation?
On Wed, 20 Mar 1996, jim bell wrote:
> Likewise, nobody on "our side" has made the fact of their input known,
> whether or not that input did any good. The question, therefore, is "Who
> knew what and when?" Who was consulted? What were their objections? What
> objections weren't satisfied? Since the bill at least superficially
> addresses some of our concerns, SOMEBODY must have told Leahy what we want.
> Who?
Leahy had his own opinions about the issues to begin with. Leahy has taken
an interest in all these matters since and before the Clipper hearings.
Your fault here is assuming that "we" are the only ones who know anything
about the crypto issue. "We" represent only a portion of those in the
field who know what they are talking about.
John Podesta is a good example. Podesta could care less what anyone on
this list has to say, but he was fairly key in designing DigiTel
clauses, and was deeply involved in development of Clipper as well. Podesta
knows the issues without being on this list at all. Now how exactly it
was that you came to the conclusion that someone told Leahy "what we
want" (as if there was some meaning to "we" and, accordingly, as if
"what we want" could even be defined) is a bit of a mystery to me.
Legislators are not the morons you seem to take them for. This is
conspiracy buff flaw #1: (There is a huge and silent set of people who
think exactly as I do. Because they are not heard, they must be
oppressed or made to be silent).
Being a member of the cypherpunk list is not a requirement to know the
issues. Part of your problem is basic arrogance. Many conspiracy buffs
share this flaw. The legislator's staff (who are paid quite handsomly
to be in the know, and often hired based on their expertise in the first
place) don't really need much help in pinning down the issues. This is
why I say that pointing to the legislators and yelling "they must have
had help! Someone in here is in cahoots with them!" is the height of
arrogance. (Conspiracy buff flaw #2)
Further, who cares who contributed to the bill? Hundreds of people with
basic roles in creating legislation are forgotten every day. So?
> 2. I haven't seen any analysis of this bill other than Peter Junger's, even
> and especially from some people and organizations that originally came out
> in favor of it. If anything, those people would be expected to be defending
> their positions, but they've not backed up that early support with anything
> close to a believable position. (Most are silent.) The implication is
> that they had no such early analysis done, and came out in favor of the bill
> anyway. Worse, they aren't correcting their position based on the more
> detailed study that has been done subsequently.
I'm lazy. But if someone sends me the bill in full via e-mail, I'll do
an analysis for the list.
> 3. Because she's a negative barometer, Denning knows that a positive
> review by her would be as close as she could do to give the "kiss of death"
> to this bill. Her putative opposition is, therefore, far more interesting
> to us. If anything, it gives us a marvelous opportunity to ensure the death
> of a bad bill.
I disagree. If Denning wasn't in on the development of the bill to begin
with, then how is it you think she is going to be crowned with some
glowing mystical authority when she does or does not complain? Even
assuming she was given such authority, negative barometer to who?
Denning is well respected in the field by "those who matter," (a subset
in which your "WE" seems to be poorly represented) and as such I can't
imagine how you think that her approval would in any way be the "kiss of
death." This is a combination of conspiracy buff flaws #2 (arrogance:
because "we" dislike Denning, everyone else must, or if Denning spurred
"us" into action, the bill surely would be dead), and conspiracy buff
flaw #3: ("Our" "enemy" is already so demonized, they could never agree
with us).
> I'm waiting for somebody to explain to me why we can't simply re-write the
> Leahy bill, take out all the bad parts and put a number of new protections
> in, and send it back to Leahy and condition our support on that edited bill.
Ok. Who's "we?" (Flaw #1 all over again) And who says that you can't
re-write the bill? Be my guest. You seem to be able to type line after
line of dribble. One would think you'd be a good legislator. Certainly
for all the credit you give lawmakers, your mastery of the legislative
process, your expertise in predicting and observing the Supreme Court,
one would wager you're just the person.
I'm sure you'll have no trouble passing a basically liberal bill that
the FBI will scream bloody murder about through a "law and order"
republican congress in the middle of an election year and in the wake of
a democratic president's public relations coup in dealing with
international terrorism. Sure the republicans will look soft for
supporting the bill, but at a time like this, security is unimportant to
them, right?
And this part I love: "and condition our support on that edited bill."
Flaws number 1 and 2 all over again. You think Leahy needs our support?
Go ahead, Mr. Bell. Rewrite the bill, send it to Leahy. Let me know
what he says. FDR couldn't pass a bill like that today.
> If Leahy really thinks he's doing a favor for the pro-encryption people,
> he'll support the corrected bill wholeheartedly. If, on the other hand,
> it's all just a fraud, there's no hope, and in that case it's better than no
> bill be passed than one that contains a few booby-traps that will explode
> shortly after the bill is passed.
Really I've never understood Leahy's position to be a strongly
free-speech one in the first place. While at the Clipper and
DigiTel hearings, it was fairly clear to me that both Leahy and Specter
were uninterested in the free speech issues, (aside a few needed sound
bytes) and rather the stagnation of the technology sector of the U.S.
economy through export regulation. (The strength and growth in this
sector and the phrase "leader in the world" was mentioned several times).
Specter cared less so even about this at the time. Even in a public
hearing I recall his concern was lackluster. Recall also that Specter
chairs the Select Committee on Intelligence. Hardly a free speecher in
any shape, even though many on this list hailed him as an provisional
ally after the Clipper hearings.
>From this perspective there is no major turn of events or dispositions
here. Leahy's bill, what of it I see, addresses his main concern,
exports and U.S. technology growth. Specter was never much on our side
to begin with.
In many ways a lot of the attitudes from those yelling "traitors" here
are the height of hypocracy.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend." (of Specter and Leahy)
"Once an enemy, always an enemy." (of Denning)
The proper course to take would have started with a more accurate
assessment of the allies of strong and unescrowed encryption. Counting
on Leahy and Specter was a major mistake. Industry has always been the
way to go (A little back patting here, I said as much at the D.C.
cypherpunks meeting back when in the midst of Clipper, no one listened
to me then either). This is the reason I was so enraged with netscape.
People listen to large, publically traded companies, most of whom are
content to take their licks and move on right now. Netscape was about
the only one who could have put a foot in the door and given people a
taste of what they were missing.
> As far as I can see, time is on our side. Industry will continue to insist
> on free export of encryption, and there will be few in Congress to oppose
> it. We already have the 1st amendment which SHOULD defend encryption,
> unless that protection is implicitly weakened by allowing a precent for the
> control of encryption. In other words, we're going to win in a year or so
> regardless of this Leahy bill, so we can afford to be hard-nosed with our
> support or lack of it.
I find your assessment optimistic in the extreme.
I believe the concentration should be more in the direction of developing
crypto tools that have long "half lives," stealth properties, and
generally prepare for the regulation or ban of strong crypto without escrow.
I've called for this before, I call for it again.
Where are more effective (and multiplatform) Stealth PGP versions? 4096 bit
RSA type keys? 256 bit conventional cyphers?
This political climate is more fear and fourhorsemen driven than anything
else. In the face of a democratic shift to law and order, and a
matching republican shift even further in the same direction, the First
Amendment, which is generally applied to public speech in any event, is
unlikely to provide much protection here.
> Jim Bell
> [email protected]
---
My prefered and soon to be permanent e-mail address: [email protected]
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed, potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him." in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55 E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information