Re: So, what crypto legislation (if any) is necessary?

[jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>]

At 01:59 AM 3/26/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote:
>At 7:08 AM 3/26/96, Shabbir J. Safdar wrote:

>My point is that I see no compelling legislation that is needed. If enough
>people in Washington really want increased length in _exported products_
>(remember the "exported" part), the Congress and the President should find
>it easy enough to get said products on to the Approved List. (I note that
>the Leahy Bill really doesn't change this system anyway...some products go
>on the list, some don't...the law only seems to say that when the horse has
>already left the barn, i.e., when "comparable" products are already in
>fairly wide use outside the U.S., then the products should be put on the
>approved list. Big deal.

There is, however, a slightly different way of looking at this.  For 
centuries, there was a saying "Nature abhors a vacuum."  While not 
scientifically correct, from the standpoint of people living below an ocean 
of atmosphere it seemed to be true.  Likewise, the political system seems to 
abhor a situation where there is neither law, nor a proposed law.  The best 
tactic might be to insist on modifications to the Leahy bill, most of which 
are quite justified, but cumulatively will be seen by "the enemy" as being 
so extreme as to be unacceptable.  At that point, the enemy may actually 
agree with our assessment that no law is better than the corrected Leahy 
bill, and we'll both walk away satisified with the "no law" option.

Think of it like pouring sugar into a gas tank.

[stuff deleted]

>
>And, frankly and bluntly, while I am not as extreme (in some ways) as, say,
>Jim Bell, in other ways I and many others of us are quite extreme.

Hey, see, I'm useful!  I make you look more, uh, "reasonable", right?

Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com