Re: New crypto bill to be introduced

[dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr. Dimitri Vulis)]

jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com> writes:
> 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.

This whole discussion of whether any of these laws will mean anything and which
bill deserves to be supported reminds me of the following story:

Once upon a time, the Tsar of Russia announced that he will hold elections to a
State Duma (parliament). Some Bolsheviks suggested that they should get their
candidates elected and try to introduce certain reform legislation. Others
suggested that the elections were a sham, they shouldn't waste their resources
taking part in them. Lenin said that both sides were wrong. The Duma was a sham
and they had no chance to pass any reform legislation. However they could use
the campaign process to get their message to the masses, and they could flame
the Tsar in the Duma if any of their candidates were elected. Of course,
everything that Lenin predicted came to pass. The Bolsheviks were able to
campaign and get some candidates elected, and they were able to say bad things
about the Tsar. However as soon as some non-Bolshevik left-wingers in the Duma
tried to pass some reform legislation, the Tsar disbanded it and had another
election, banning all potentially disloyal candidates from running.

And another story in the same vein: once a Chassidic businesman came to a rabbi
and asked the following question: "Rebbe, I'm about to get audited by the IRS.
Should I wear a business suit, so they'll think I'm a respectable person, or
should I wear rags, so they'll think I'm poor and can pay them nothing?"

Before the rabbi could answer, a young woman ran in and asked the following
question: "Rebbe, today I'm getting married. [Recall that in some societies
there's not supposed to be any sex before marriage.] On my wedding night,
should I go to bed wearing a nightgown or nothing?"

The rabbi said to the woman: "No matter how you dress, you'll get screwed."
And to the businessman: "And by the way, this also answers your question."

---

<a href="mailto:dlv@bwalk.dm.com">Dr. Dimitri Vulis</a>
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps