[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
EFF on crypto bills
[In reply to Shabbir's message. -Declan]
---------- Forwarded message begins here ----------
From: Stanton McCandlish <[email protected]>
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: NYT: Encryption compromise bill introduced
To: [email protected] (Shabbir J. Safdar)
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 13:55:07 -0800 (PST)
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "Shabbir J.
Safdar" at Mar 6, 96 03:14:01 pm
> The Leahy bill is actually much better than Stanton lets on. Take a
> look at it, it affirms Americans' right to choose whatever algorithm or
> technique they'd like, as well as takes great pains to go on record to
> say that Congress treaded very carefully to preserve Americans' right
> to not use key escrow algorithms, and if they did, not to use escrow
> agents. You don't get much more of a guarantee than that.
Sure you do: Goodlatte's more direct prohibition on the Exec. branch
mandating Key Escrow. What's the problem here? We know Goodlatte's
version, on this provision at very least, is better. Why can't we just
agree that it is, and support that? Goodlatte's bill isn't competing
with Leahy's, they were introduced simultaneously in different chambers,
and are intended to get the same message across. I can't see a problem
with saying "we like this particular phrasing better, let's have it in
both versions." The entire point of all this is to have the same bill on
both sides of Congress anyway. It can either happen early, or (on the
off chance it ever gets that far) in conference committee. Here we have a
large say. In conf. cmte. we have almost no say. Again, what's the problem?
What are we arguing about?
> Regardless of the ulterior motives of the White House, key escrow
> programs are still voluntary as read on the books. The best we can
> write into a law is to have our rights reaffirmed. Leahy has given
> this to us in spades.
I disagree. A better thing we can write into law is to simultanously
have rights reaffirmed, and send a more direct message to the Admin that it
cannot tread here.
> Let's not soft-pedal this legislation.
Let's not hard sell flawed parts of it, when fixes are not just
available but already introduced as "live" legislation.
> Leahy and Goodlatte are going
> head to head with the White House to undermine the strongarm export
> tactics of Clipper and Son of Clipper. They've stuck their necks out for
> us, we need to back them up.
Certainly.
> Just wait until the White House starts to act in reaction to this. It's
> not going to be pretty....
No kidding.
I expect either an attempt to mandate escrow, a worsening of the export
controls, and/or an all-out assault on American's rights to encrypt at
all, or without some kind of worse-than-GAK registry or licensing. If
not all of the above.
--
<HTML><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/~mech/"> Stanton McCandlish
</A><HR><A HREF="mailto:[email protected]"> [email protected]
</A><P><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/"> Electronic Frontier Foundation
</A><P><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/A"> Online Activist </A></HTML>