Re: New crypto bill to be introduced

[jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>]

At 11:35 AM 3/30/96 -0500, Declan B. McCullagh wrote:
>A few responses to Jim Bell:
>
>* Why would Sen. Burns introduce *this* particular crypto bill? Would
>you believe that he wanted to appear cyber-clueful and net-friendly, but
>didn't know exactly how to do that -- so certain people suggested that
>this bill would be an appropriate way to do it?

I'm well aware of symbolic gestures.  Maybe this is one of them.  But having 
not seen it yet it's who knows how worthy it is.  I'm wondering when 
somebody is going to post it.  I'm also waiting for those people who claimed 
that the Leahy bill was dead (for lack-of-time reasons if nothing else) to 
express the same opinion of this newer bill.  Not that I want it dead; I 
just want to see if people are using consistent levels of logic.

>
>* Why would Sen. Burns introduce this particular bill *now*? One word: CFP.

Yes?

>* Why would Jim Bell post anonymously? He writes:

>> That is a silly conclusion.  The primary reason for anonymity with such 
>> postings is to avoid controversy being associated with one's name.  I, as 
>
>No, the primary reason for anonymity is to avoid being *associated* with
>one's name. I know this may be attributing an undeserved sense of
>precedence, but perhaps Jim Bell has realized that his opinions are
>discarded out-of-hand by many on this list, so he posts anonymously to
>regain some credibility. A message from anonymous would also work nicely
>to reinforce his own position, allowing Jim Bell to claim additional
>allies.

In view of the fact that I've repeatedly publicly stated that I'm not aware 
of the Leahy-bill position of many if not most of the people listed, this 
seems unlikely.  Like most of the people around here, I'm still waiting for 
some sort of showing that demonstrates why any given person was listed.  I'm 
also waiting for counter-arguments:   For example, statements by those 
listed, or others, explaining why they they should not have been listed.  
There is a distinct lack of documentation from BOTH sides.  This leads me to 
suspect that there may really be only one side there: a straw man set up 
anonymously, and a bunch of people racing (non-anonymously, of course!) to 
knock him down.  (Or possibly the original anonymous message was legit, and 
some others were posted to discredit the original post; I may not have those 
messages, and I haven't looked to see if they came from a stable anonymous 
address.)


>Anyway, last night I sat next to Dorothy Denning on the bus to the EFF
>Pioneer Awards reception and dinner, and we chatted for about 20
>minutes. She's a sweet old lady -- I can't think of anyone with whom
>it's easier to agree to disagree. I asked her what she thought of a
>number of people -- on Tim May she said: "Let's not talk about that."
>She also said she's educating a House committee about crypto next week
>-- I dearly hope our side will have some experts there
 as well.

I think we need to ask ourselves why Denning keeps getting invited to these 
kinds of hearings.  If the purpose is to get an accurate, unbiased view of 
encryption, I'm sure there's plenty of experts who could take her place 
without sharing her conveniently pro-government position.  Never having seen 
such a hearing, I can't say for sure, but I suspect she's billed as an 
"encryption expert," when in fact she should be labelled as a 
"pro-government-biased encryption expert."  Which, I suppose, is okay too, 
since all sides deserve to be heard.  However, there should be no illusion 
about her point of view in such matters.

Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com